JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 17, 2025, 01:17:18 PM ---Wrong. CE 857 and CE 859 show the fragments from one of the FMJ bullets from the WC's wound ballistics test. The photos in these exhibits show that this test missile broke up into far fewer fragments than we see in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. CE 857 shows 8 sizable fragments and perhaps 8-10 smaller ones in a plastic box. To the right of the box, it shows two large bullet fragments with the front end crushed. CE 859 shows 10 sizable fragments and maybe 15 smaller ones. There is some question about whether CE 859 contains fragments from other test bullets, given the x-rays of the skulls used in the test. But, even assuming it does not, it still proves that the fragmentation of the test bullets was very different from that of the ammo that hit JFK's skull.
We also know this from the x-rays of one of the skulls from the WC's test (see CE 861 and CE 862). Those x-rays show minimal fragmentation, and the fragmentation they show is markedly different from the fragmentation seen on the autopsy skull x-rays. The JFK skull x-rays show about 50 fragments, with about 40 concentrated in a "snowstorm" of fragments in the right-front part of the skull and with several in the back of the skull. This bears no resemblance to the WC's test, nor to Lattimer's test, nor to the Failure Analysis test.
You can see the above-mentioned CEs in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view.
The test skull x-rays suggest that CE 857 and/or CE 859 include fragments from more than one test bullet, since they (the x-rays) show minimal fragmentation, and since Dr. Olivier, the man who conducted the test, told Howard Donahue that the test bullets did not explode or disintegrate and that they broke up into only a few fragments. Even Arlen Specter noticed that the two exhibits contain different amounts of fragments.
Even taken at face value, CEs 857 and 859 contradict the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Also, the fragmentation seen in the x-rays of the test skull looks nothing like the fragmentation in the JFK skull x-rays.
8 visible fragments plus no more than 10-15 smaller ones does not equal 50 fragments with a snowstorm concentration in the right front and with several fragments in the back of the skull. And I should add that Lattimer was caught more than once outright falsifying his test results.
If an FMJ bullet had hit JFK's head, we would not see 40 some fragments clustered together to form a "snowstorm" image with other fragments trailing upward from the snowstorm, nor would we see several fragments in the rear outer table of the skull. The right-front fragment snowstorm alone is clear evidence that a high-velocity frangible bullet hit JFK's head in the right front. An FMJ bullet would never fragment in this manner.
--- End quote ---
There looks to be about 17 fragments in CE-857. There are two in CE-858.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439a.htm
I count 39 fragments in CE-859
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439b.htm
That's 58 in total. Those are all from one bullet. The tests done for the WC at Edgewood Arsenal did show that FMJ bullets do shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate human skulls.
--- Quote ---You somehow horribly misread DiMaio and S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n. DiMaio specifically said that if skull x-rays show dozens of fragments this rules FMJ ammo as the ammo, and S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n said the 6.5 mm object cannot be from an FMJ bullet because an FMJ bullet would never leave fragments from its cross-section in that location. In fact, just to nail this down, let's read what DiMaio and S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n said once again:
DiMaio:
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small
fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-
jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed
centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be
seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic
x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used
is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case,
one will see a “lead snowstorm” [Figure 11.4]. In high-quality x-rays,
the majority of the fragments visualized have a fine “dust-like” quality.
Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug.
(Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318, emphasis added).
Are we clear now? DiMaio most certainly did say that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of fragments inside a skull. Indeed, he said that if a skull x-ray shows a "snowstorm" of fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo.
--- End quote ---
I'm sorry but I don't see the word skull in that text. DiMaio did not say that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate skulls.
--- Quote ---S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n:
Here's what S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n said about this in 1998 in explaining why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment:
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. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination
Paradoxes, KDP, 2022, p. 21)
In his 2005 book The JFK Myths, S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n explains the 6.5 mm "fragment" seen on the autopsy x-rays cannot be from an FMJ bullet in response to Dr. Michael Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence for the debunked cowlick entry site:
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the
obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's]
proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not
fragment on the outside of the skull.
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. (pp. 184-185)
Are we clear now?
--- End quote ---
St.u.r.d.ivan seemed to grudgingly accept that the "6.5mm object" was in the back of the skull. He was wrong. He should have gone with his skepticism. The "6.5mm object" was not at the back of the skull. It was the 7mm x 2mm fragment remove by Humes from behind the right eye.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 18, 2025, 04:43:14 AM ---
There looks to be about 17 fragments in CE-857. There are two in CE-858.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439a.htm
I count 39 fragments in CE-859
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439b.htm
--- End quote ---
You still haven't read my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," have you? Dr. Olivier said that CE 857 and CE 859 were "supposed to" contain the same fragments, but they obviously do not. This is when Specter took the conversation off-the-record. Now, gee, why do you suppose Specter feld the need to do that?
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 18, 2025, 04:43:14 AM ---
There looks to be about 17 fragments in CE-857. There are two in CE-858.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439a.htm
I count 39 fragments in CE-859
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439b.htm
That's 58 in total.
--- End quote ---
You still haven't read my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," have you? Dr. Olivier said that CE 857 and CE 859 were "supposed to" contain the same fragments, but obviously they do not. This is when Specter took the conversation off-the-record. Now, gee, why do you suppose Specter felt the need to do that?
So it's not 58 in total. It's less than 40, and there is considerable doubt, given the test skull x-rays, that those exhibits contained only fragments from one bullet, not to mention the fact that at least 20 of them were sizable fragments and that the fragmentation pattern they produced in the test skull x-rays bears no resemblance to the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays.
Are you ever going to you explain the fact that the x-rays of the test skull show minimal fragmentation?
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 18, 2025, 04:43:14 AM ---Those are all from one bullet. The tests done for the WC at Edgewood Arsenal did show that FMJ bullets do shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate human skulls.
--- End quote ---
You are kidding yourself. The WC test skull x-rays refute your argument. They show minimal fragmentation. CEs 857, 858, and 859, even ignoring the questions about their validity, do not prove your claim. Lattimer's test produced no more than 23 fragments, 8 of which were sizable, which bears no resemblance to the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays. The FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test behaved in the same way that Dr. Olivier told Donahue the FMJ bullets in the WC test behaved: they broke into no more than a few fragments.
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 18, 2025, 04:43:14 AM --- I'm sorry but I don't see the word skull in that text. DiMaio did not say that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate skulls.
--- End quote ---
I take it you didn't bother to read anything else in DiMaio's book, such as these two paragraphs:
A gunshot wound of the head from a high-velocity handgun bullet —
typically the .357 Magnum — can produce an x-ray picture superficially
resembling the lead snowstorm of hunting bullets. Breakup of the handgun
bullet, however, requires perforation of bone which is not necessary with a
rifle bullet. The fragments produced by the handgun bullet are fewer in
number and larger. Lead dust is also not present (see Figure 11.5).
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . .
usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has
perforated bone such as the skull or spine. If any fragments are seen,
they are very sparse in number, very fine and located at the point the bullet
perforated bone. (p. 166)
Are we clear now?
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 18, 2025, 04:43:14 AM --- S.t.u.r.d.ivan seemed to grudgingly accept that the "6.5mm object" was in the back of the skull. He was wrong. He should have gone with his skepticism. The "6.5mm object" was not at the back of the skull. It was the 7mm x 2mm fragment remove by Humes from behind the right eye.
--- End quote ---
I've already refuted this inexcusable claim. A 7 x 2 mm fragment is not a 6.5 mm object. The two objects are very different in shape and are easily distinguishable from each other on the AP x-ray. It is amazing that you continue to ignore these self-evident, determinative facts.
The four forensic experts on the Clark Panel, the nine forensic experts on the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, and the two HSCA radiology consultants (McDonnel and Seaman) said the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the skull. Dr. David Mantik (physicist and radiation oncologist) and Dr. Michael Chesser (neurologist) have examined the skull x-rays and have proved via optical density measurements that there is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object. They've also confirmed the existence of the McDonnel fragment, which is about 1 cm to the left of the 6.5 mm object and 1 cm below the now-debunked cowlick entry site.
You don't want to deal with the fact that those back-of-head fragments could not possibly have come from an FMJ bullet.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 18, 2025, 02:32:04 PM ---You still haven't read my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," have you? Dr. Olivier said that CE 857 and CE 859 were "supposed to" contain the same fragments, but they obviously do not. This is when Specter took the conversation off-the-record. Now, gee, why do you suppose Specter feld the need to do that?
You still haven't read my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," have you? Dr. Olivier said that CE 857 and CE 859 were "supposed to" contain the same fragments, but obviously they do not. This is when Specter took the conversation off-the-record. Now, gee, why do you suppose Specter felt the need to do that?
So it's not 58 in total. It's less than 40, and there is considerable doubt, given the test skull x-rays, that those exhibits contained only fragments from one bullet, not to mention the fact that at least 20 of them were sizable fragments and that the fragmentation pattern they produced in the test skull x-rays bears no resemblance to the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays.
--- End quote ---
I counted 39 fragments in CE-859. With the 2 in CE-858, that makes 41. I don't what a dozen is in your fantasy world but it's 12 here in the real world. Unless you're a baker. The tests done for the WC at Edgewood Arsenal did show that FMJ bullets do shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate human skulls.
--- Quote ---Are you ever going to you explain the fact that the x-rays of the test skull show minimal fragmentation?
You are kidding yourself. The WC test skull x-rays refute your argument. They show minimal fragmentation.
--- End quote ---
From page 168 of JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination:
Doesn't look like minimal fragmentation to me.
--- Quote ---CEs 857, 858, and 859, even ignoring the questions about their validity, do not prove your claim.
--- End quote ---
Wait, what? Questions about the validity of CE-857, 858, and 859? Surely, you jest? Those exhibits do prove my claim. FMJ bullets do shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate human skulls.
--- Quote ---Lattimer's test produced no more than 23 fragments, 8 of which were sizable, which bears no resemblance to the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays. The FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test behaved in the same way that Dr. Olivier told Donahue the FMJ bullets in the WC test behaved: they broke into no more than a few fragments.
--- End quote ---
How have you determined that Lattimer's test produced no more than 23 fragments?
--- Quote ---I take it you didn't bother to read anything else in DiMaio's book, such as these two paragraphs:
A gunshot wound of the head from a high-velocity handgun bullet —
typically the .357 Magnum — can produce an x-ray picture superficially
resembling the lead snowstorm of hunting bullets. Breakup of the handgun
bullet, however, requires perforation of bone which is not necessary with a
rifle bullet. The fragments produced by the handgun bullet are fewer in
number and larger. Lead dust is also not present (see Figure 11.5).
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . .
usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has
perforated bone such as the skull or spine. If any fragments are seen,
they are very sparse in number, very fine and located at the point the bullet
perforated bone. (p. 206)
Are we clear now?
--- End quote ---
DiMaio wrote that military bullets usually do not fragment in the body or shed fragments of lead in their paths but there are exceptions. He alse wrote this:
"A fact not appreciated is that full metal-jacketed rifle bullets may break up in the body without hitting bone."
- Page 79
And since you're such a fan of DiMaio, I'll just repost this for your appreciation:
"In gunshot wounds of the skull, a large fragment of lead may be deposited between the scalp and the outer table of the skull at the entrance site. This piece of lead is sheared off the bullet as it enters. With lead .32 revolver bullets and less commonly with .38 bullets, this fragment often has a “C” or commashaped configuration (Figure 11.7). Rarely, the tip of the jacket of a full metal jacketed bullet is so deposited." - Page 337
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 18, 2025, 02:32:04 PM ---
I've already refuted this inexcusable claim. A 7 x 2 mm fragment is not a 6.5 mm object. The two objects are very different in shape and are easily distinguishable from each other on the AP x-ray. It is amazing that you continue to ignore these self-evident, determinative facts.
The four forensic experts on the Clark Panel, the nine forensic experts on the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, and the two HSCA radiology consultants (McDonnel and Seaman) said the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the skull. Dr. David Mantik (physicist and radiation oncologist) and Dr. Michael Chesser (neurologist) have examined the skull x-rays and have proved via optical density measurements that there is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object. They've also confirmed the existence of the McDonnel fragment, which is about 1 cm to the left of the 6.5 mm object and 1 cm below the now-debunked cowlick entry site.
You don't want to deal with the fact that those back-of-head fragments could not possibly have come from an FMJ bullet.
--- End quote ---
You refuted nothing. You falsely claim that the fragment seen in the frontal skull bone in the lateral view was the 7mm x 2mm fragment removed by Humes. I'm unaware of anyone else who makes that claim.
Humes: Two small irregularly-shaped fragments of metal are recovered. They measure 7 by 2 and 3 by 1. Well, that large one that you saw in that first AP view of the skull could be the 7-by-2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI. --- ARRB Deposition
============
Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night ofthe autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
-------------------------------
Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.
"the location in terms of distance from vertex of the round fragment corresponds exactly with a bullet fragment located at the front of the skull at the "height" of the upper part of the frontal sinus. This corresponds, in the frontal x-ray, to the circular fragment located at the level of the right supraorbital ridge. Using an optical micrometer, the cross-sectional diameter of these two fragments is identical. (In the author's measurements, both fragments were measured to be 7mm in diameter; the Panel, using better quality material, measured the circular fragment as 6.5mm in diameter and Is almost certainly more accurate.) There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow.
The sole rationale for this contention by the Panel is that a sharp radiopaque image usually represents an object close to the x-ray film. For example, when Humes met with the Panel, the following exchange occurred (HSCA 7:251):
DR. PETTY. Now, may I ask you one other question on this X-ray, Dr. Humes.
Here is a view taken, I assume, with the radiation point above the face and the film behind the back of the head.
DR. HUMES. Not being a radiologist, I presume that.
DR. PETTY. If that's true, then the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen In the lateral view —
DR. HUMES. Up by the eyebrow.
DR. PETTY. No. Up by the — in the back of the skull.
The anatomical evidence is unequivocal; however, for the sake of completeness, it may be pointed out that the clarity of a radiographic image, assuming sufficient beam intensity, depends upon the coherence ("sharpness") of the radiopaque image on the photographic emulsion. Physical factors that determine coherence include radiopaqueness (100% for a metal fragment), sharpness of the edge (minimizing beam scatter), and location relative to the radiation beam (minimizing defraction). In general, distance will correlate with clarity (the greater the distance to the emulsion, the greater the displacement due to scatter) but it is not causal. A bullet fragment in cross-section and located near the center of the radiation beam would be expected to produce an image such as that observed in the frontal x-ray. The essential points, however, are: (1) It is anatomically impossible that the "high" fragment is the circular fragment in the frontal x-ray and (2) The round fragment correlates exactly in size and location to the fragment in the lateral x-ray immediately superior to the frontal sinus.
There is a major bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. The evidence is unequivocal and, without qualification, the Panel is in error in equating the round fragment in the frontal x-ray with the "high" fragment in the lateral x-ray." -- Joseph N Riley, Ph.D. in Neuroscience, specializing in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology.
https://archive.org/details/nsia-RileyJosephN/nsia-RileyJosephN/Riley%20Joseph%20N%2005/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater
If there was a 6.5 mm object in the rear of the skull it would be visible in the right lateral X-Ray. Claiming that the X-rays are altered is fringe looniness. The X-rays have been confirmed as authentic and unaltered by the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts, by the radiologist responsible for the X-Rays, and by the two techs who took them.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on Today at 02:47:17 AM ---You refuted nothing. You falsely claim that the fragment seen in the frontal skull bone in the lateral view was the 7mm x 2mm fragment removed by Humes. I'm unaware of anyone else who makes that claim.
Humes: Two small irregularly-shaped fragments of metal are recovered. They measure 7 by 2 and 3 by 1. Well, that large one that you saw in that first AP view of the skull could be the 7-by-2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI.
--- ARRB Deposition
============
Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night ofthe autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
-------------------------------
Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.
"the location in terms of distance from vertex of the round fragment corresponds exactly with a bullet fragment located at the front of the skull at the "height" of the upper part of the frontal sinus. This corresponds, in the frontal x-ray, to the circular fragment located at the level of the right supraorbital ridge. Using an optical micrometer, the cross-sectional diameter of these two fragments is identical. (In the author's measurements, both fragments were measured to be 7mm in diameter; the Panel, using better quality material, measured the circular fragment as 6.5mm in diameter and Is almost certainly more accurate.) There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow.
The sole rationale for this contention by the Panel is that a sharp radiopaque image usually represents an object close to the x-ray film. For example, when Humes met with the Panel, the following exchange occurred (HSCA 7:251):
DR. PETTY. Now, may I ask you one other question on this X-ray, Dr. Humes.
Here is a view taken, I assume, with the radiation point above the face and the film behind the back of the head.
DR. HUMES. Not being a radiologist, I presume that.
DR. PETTY. If that's true, then the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen In the lateral view —
DR. HUMES. Up by the eyebrow.
DR. PETTY. No. Up by the — in the back of the skull.
The anatomical evidence is unequivocal; however, for the sake of completeness, it may be pointed out that the clarity of a radiographic image, assuming sufficient beam intensity, depends upon the coherence ("sharpness") of the radiopaque image on the photographic emulsion. Physical factors that determine coherence include radiopaqueness (100% for a metal fragment), sharpness of the edge (minimizing beam scatter), and location relative to the radiation beam (minimizing defraction). In general, distance will correlate with clarity (the greater the distance to the emulsion, the greater the displacement due to scatter) but it is not causal. A bullet fragment in cross-section and located near the center of the radiation beam would be expected to produce an image such as that observed in the frontal x-ray. The essential points, however, are: (1) It is anatomically impossible that the "high" fragment is the circular fragment in the frontal x-ray and (2) The round fragment correlates exactly in size and location to the fragment in the lateral x-ray immediately superior to the frontal sinus.
There is a major bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. The evidence is unequivocal and, without qualification, the Panel is in error in equating the round fragment in the frontal x-ray with the "high" fragment in the lateral x-ray." -- Joseph N Riley, Ph.D. in Neuroscience, specializing in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology.
--- End quote ---
As we both know, I have already answered every single one of these arguments earlier in this thread and proved they are invalid. You have ignored my responses and have simply repeated your debunked claims.
Again, as anyone with two functioning eyes can plainly see, the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both clearly visible and easily distinguishable from each other on the AP x-ray. It is astounding that you keep denying this readily observable fact.
The two objects are shaped very differently, as anyone can also see. The 6.5 mm object is circular with a small notch in its lower-left edge--that's why it is identified with a single measurement. The 7 x 2 mm fragment looks nothing like the 6.5 mm object, which is why its dimensions are described with two measurements, one for its length and the other for its width. Are you seriously claiming that you cannot see this?
BTW, if you're going to quote Dr. Riley, you should advise readers that Riley also insisted that the skull x-rays prove that two bullets hit JFK's head and that the alleged cowlick entry site is bogus. I just thought I'd mention these facts, since you did not.
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on Today at 02:47:17 AM ---If there was a 6.5 mm object in the rear of the skull it would be visible in the right lateral X-Ray.
--- End quote ---
Yet again, you repeat arguments that I've already answered. As anyone can see in our previous exchanges, I've pointed out to you that the 6.5 mm object is a ghosted image and that inside that image is a smaller genuine bullet fragment measuring 6.3 x 2.5 mm and that near this fragment there are several tiny particles. This fragment is visible on the lateral x-ray and has been confirmed by OD measurements by Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser.
I've also pointed out that the McDonnel fragment is near the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, and this fragment has also been confirmed via OD measurements. This is hard science that you just sweep aside because it destroys your shooting scenario.
Do you remember the following exchange about Humes and the 6.5 mm object?:
--- Quote ---YOU: Humes acknowledged in his ARRB testimony that the "6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that he removed.
ME: He did no such thing. When he was asked specifically about the 6.5 mm object, he said he didn't remember seeing anything that big during the autopsy.
Now, let's see what Humes said when he was specifically asked about the 6.5 mm object:
_______________________________________
Page 212
Q. Dr. Humes, you're now looking at X-ray 5-B No. 1. I'd like to ask you whether you have previously seen that X-ray.
A. I probably have. It's antero-posterior view of the skull and the jaw. . . .
________________________________________
Page 213
Q. Did you notice that what at least appears to be a radio-opaque fragment during the autopsy?
A. Well, I told you we received one--we retrieved one or two, and--of course, you get distortion in the X-ray as far as size goes. The ones we retrieved I didn't think were of the same size as this would lead you to believe.
Q. Did you think they were larger or smaller?
A. Smaller. Smaller, considerably smaller. I mean, these other little things would be about the size of what--I'm not sure what that is or whether that's a defect. I'm not enough of a radiologist to be able to tell you. But I don't remember retrieving anything of that size.
Q. Well, that was going to be a question, whether you had identified that as a possible fragment and then removed it.
A. Truthfully, I don't remember anything that size when I looked at these films. They all were more of the size of these others.
So let's hear no more of the false claim that Humes told the ARRB that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy. He made it clear that he neither saw nor removed a fragment as large as the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy.
--- End quote ---
Remember? Ring a bell? Does this refresh your memory?
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on Today at 02:47:17 AM ---Claiming that the X-rays are altered is fringe looniness. The X-rays have been confirmed as authentic and unaltered by the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts, by the radiologist responsible for the X-Rays, and by the two techs who took them.
--- End quote ---
Are you posting from a parallel universe in the 1980s? These arguments were excusable in the 1980s, but they are hollow and disingenuous in our day. Here, too, readers can see that I've already answered these arguments earlier in this thread, but you have once again chosen to ignore my replies and have simply repeated your claims.
But, tell me, was Dr. Arthus Haas, chief of medical physics at Kodak, guilty of "fringe looniness" when he peer-reviewed Dr. David Mantik's first article on evidence of alteration in the skull x-rays and found no issues with it? How about Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, who has examined the autopsy materials and has confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings with his own OD measurements--another peddler of "fringe looniness"? How about Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dr. Robert Livingston, etc., etc.--all of whom have found evidence that the skull x-rays have been altered? More peddlers of "fringe looniness"?
If the autopsy skull x-rays are unaltered, where is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report and confirmed by the autopsy doctors in their five-hour 1966 examination of the autopsy materials? Huh? Where is it? Why is the high fragment trail seen on the current skull x-rays not mentioned in the autopsy report? Did all three autopsy doctors "miss" it? Or, did they somehow "mistake" it for a trail that started at a point 4 inches lower on the skull, at the EOP, and that coursed at a totally different angle?
I see in your reply regarding FMJ bullets leaving fragments in skulls that you have simply ignored DiMaio's observation that FMJ bullets will NEVER shatter into dozens of fragments when penetrating a skull. DiMaio specifically said that if an x-ray--any x-ray of any part of the body, skull or otherwise--shows a "snowstorm" of tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo.
You quoted DiMaio's statement on p. 337 of Gunshot Wounds but ignored my observation that DiMaio said that only on rare occasions will an FMJ bullet deposit a fragment at the entry site on a skull and that if it does so it will deposit the tip of the FMJ round, not lead from the cross-section. Why did you ignore this?
And let's read again where DiMaio says that on the rare occasions when an FMJ bullet does leave fragments, they are "very sparse in number":
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . .
usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has
perforated bone such as the skull or spine. If any fragments are seen,
they are very sparse in number, very fine and located at the point the bullet
perforated bone. (p. 166)
Yet, in the JFK skull x-rays, we see a snow storm of some 40 tiny fragments in the right frontal region, the exact opposite of what DiMaio says we'll see with FMJ bullets. Let's read him again on this point:
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small
fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-
jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed
centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be
seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone.
One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of
weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting
ammunition. In such a case, one will see a “lead snowstorm” [Figure 11.4].
In high-quality x-rays, the majority of the fragments visualized have a fine
“dust-like” quality. Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle
ammunition or a shotgun slug. (p. 318, emphasis added)
It seems you just can't bring yourself to face these facts. If an FMJ bullet had hit JFK's head, we would not see several small fragments in the back of the skull and would not see a snow storm of tiny fragments in the right frontal region of the skull.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version