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:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2025, 05:16:03 AM ---You claimed that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate human skulls. I proved that claim to be false. The 40 or so fragments from the Edgewood Arsenal test alone prove it.
--- End quote ---
You keep repeating this false claim without addressing the contrary facts that I've presented to you. Dr. Olivier himself, the guy who conducted that test, said the FMJ bullets only broke up into a few fragments. The test skull x-rays alone debunk your claim, but you just keep ignoring them. Those x-rays also strongly suggest that those "40 or so fragments" did not all come from one bullet but from several bullets. And, the fragmentation pattern from the Edgewood Arsenal test bullets bears no resemblance to the pattern we see in the JFK skull x-rays.
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2025, 05:16:03 AM ---Instead of acknowledging that you were wrong , you ignore the results of the Edgewood test and throw in some text that you cherry picked from DiMaio's book.
--- End quote ---
No, instead of acknowledging that you were wrong, you repeated your bogus claims without addressing a single contrary fact that I presented to you, and now you're making the equally bogus claim that the quotes from the DiMaio book were "cherry picked." Dr. Eric Berg, a forensic pathologist, when asked if FMJ bullets will shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, said, "No," and he cited DiMaio's book as his source (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view).
DiMaio's quoted statements are not cherry-picked at all, as anyone who reads them in his book can see. You just don't like them because they destroy your version of the shooting.
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2025, 05:16:03 AM ---Humes acknowledged in his ARRB testimony that the "6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that he removed. It wasn't a definitive statement but it was close enough.
--- End quote ---
You must know this is false. As I have proved, when Humes was specifically asked about the 6.5 mm object, he plainly and clearly said he didn't see or remove any fragment that large. Let's read what he said yet again, since you keep repeating your false claim:
_______________________________________
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, once again, 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.
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2025, 05:16:03 AM ---Reed and Custer both stated definitively that the semi-circular object in the AP X-Ray was seen by them on Nov 22, 1963 and that it was a metal fragment located in the area of the right orbital ridge.
--- End quote ---
As I have pointed to you several times, Reed and Custer said nothing about seeing the 6.5 mm object when they were interviewed by the HSCA or by private researchers. Custer said nothing about seeing the object in his many hours of discussions about the skull x-rays with Dr. David Mantik. If Reed and Custer saw the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays during the autopsy, why isn't the object mentioned in the autopsy report? Why did Humes tell the ARRB that he neither saw nor removed a fragment as large as the 6.5 mm object? Why didn't the radiologist at the autopsy, Dr. Ebersole, see it? Why didn't the autopsy doctors mention it in their report after they reviewed the autopsy materials for five hours in 1966?
Reed also changed his story about the location of the large head wound. He told the HSCA the wound was “located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region” (HSCA interview transcript, 5/2/1978, p. 2), but he told the ARRB that it was above the right ear. Custer did a similar flip-flop, after stating clearly in two recorded interviews that the large head wound was right-occipital-parietal, he changed his tune when interviewed by the ARRB. Only two of the autopsy witnesses who told the HSCA or private researchers in recorded interviews that the large wound was in the right-rear of the skull changed their story when interviewed by the ARRB: Reed and Custer. Gee, what a coincidence.
When are you going to address the scientific evidence that the 6.5 mm object is an artifact and not a bullet fragment? Even S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n admits it must be an artifact. Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate the method that was used to ghost the object's image onto the AP x-ray. Multiple OD measurements prove the object cannot be metallic--if it were, it would show up on the lateral x-ray.
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2025, 05:16:03 AM ---The 7mm x 2mm fragment was not removed from the frontal skull bone. It was removed from the brain behind the right eye. The "6.5mm" object is that 7mm x 2mm fragment. That you maintain that it was removed from the frontal skull bone is indicative of how pathetic your case really is. The case of "fragments on the back of the skull" is dead in the water.
--- End quote ---
I don't know whether to laugh or sigh, or both. This is just bizarre. I've never seen such self-delusion in any online discussion.
First off, the 6.5 mm object is 1.5 inches below and slightly to the right of the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP skull x-ray. This alone refutes your baffling fiction that the 6.5 mm object is the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Two, the 7 x 2 mm fragment was behind and above the right eye, as is plainly visible on the skull x-rays, which indisputably puts it in the frontal bone. Three, most of the bone behind the right eye is frontal bone. Four, even Lattimer said the 6.5 mm object was a separate fragment from the 7 x 2 mm fragment, as did the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, and the ARRB medical panel.
How on Earth can you look at the AP x-ray and not easily and clearly see that the 6.5 mm object is well below the 7 x 2 mm fragment? I mean, what is going on with you on this issue? This is just bonkers crazy.
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 20, 2025, 05:16:03 AM ---Has Dr Arthus Haas personally examined the X-Rays in the National Archives? Where can one read his peer-reviewed paper? Chesser, Aguilar, and Livingston are/were all guilty of looniness. I'm not familiar with Henkelmann. Wecht certainly peddled looniness but I doubt that he believed in the stuff he was peddling.
--- End quote ---
LOL! "Looniness"??? Give your lunacy that the 6.5 mm object is the 7 x 2 mm fragment, you're in no position to be accusing anyone of "looniness."
Dr. Haas did not need to examine the autopsy x-rays at the National Archives to properly peer-review Dr. Mantik's research and methodology. Dr. Mantik provided all of his OD measurements for examination. Reasonably usable copies of the skull x-rays were already available in the 1990s when Haas proof-read Mantik's article, but he already had the key evidence, the OD measurements.
FYI, Dr. Chesser is an experienced, board-certified neurologist who has studied the autopsy photos and skull x-rays at the National Archives and also studied JFK's pre-mortem skull x-rays in Boston. Dr. Chesser has also done OD measurements on the skull x-rays.
Dr. Aguilar is a board-certified ophthalmologist and a professor of ophthalmology at the University of California. He has examined the autopsy photos and skull x-rays at the National Archives.
Dr. Livingston was a combat surgeon in WW II. He then became a professor of physiology at Yale University and at the University of California. In 1964, he founded the neuroscience department at the National Institutes of Health. He was famous for his research in the computer mapping and imaging of the human brain.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 23, 2025, 02:45:10 PM ---You keep repeating this false claim without addressing the contrary facts that I've presented to you. Dr. Olivier himself, the guy who conducted that test, said the FMJ bullets only broke up into a few fragments. The test skull x-rays alone debunk your claim, but you just keep ignoring them. Those x-rays also strongly suggest that those "40 or so fragments" did not all come from one bullet but from several bullets. And, the fragmentation pattern from the Edgewood Arsenal test bullets bears no resemblance to the pattern we see in the JFK skull x-rays.
--- End quote ---
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 859 and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. These are the smaller fragments that have been labeled, also, Exhibit 857. This picture or some of the fragments labeled 857, these are the smaller fragments contained in the same box.
Mr. SPECTER. Are all of the fragments on 859 contained within 857?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are supposed to be, photographed and placed in the box. If they dropped out they are supposed to be all there.
.......
Mr. SPECTER. For that purpose I hand you Commission Exhibit 860 and ask you if that is designated in any way to identify it.
Mr. DULLES. This is the test we are talking about now, is it?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir; where the bullet fragmented into pieces in 857.
.....
Dr. OLIVIER. This photograph is the skull that was shot with the bullet, the fragments which are marked 857.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0440a.htm
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 24, 2025, 05:56:52 AM ---Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 859 and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. These are the smaller fragments that have been labeled, also, Exhibit 857. This picture or some of the fragments labeled 857, these are the smaller fragments contained in the same box.
Mr. SPECTER. Are all of the fragments on 859 contained within 857?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are supposed to be, photographed and placed in the box. If they dropped out they are supposed to be all there.
.......
Mr. SPECTER. For that purpose I hand you Commission Exhibit 860 and ask you if that is designated in any way to identify it.
Mr. DULLES. This is the test we are talking about now, is it?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir; where the bullet fragmented into pieces in 857.
.....
Dr. OLIVIER. This photograph is the skull that was shot with the bullet, the fragments which are marked 857.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0440a.htm
--- End quote ---
LOL!!! Holy cow!!! Now compare that test-skull x-ray with the JFK skull x-rays!!! The test-skull x-ray has fragments scattered from a point just above the EOP to the right orbit. The JFK skull x-rays show no fragments anywhere near the EOP but shows fragments at least 2 inches higher in the top part of the skull, i.e., the cloud of fragments high in the right-frontal region and trailing to/from and upward to/from a sparse trail that courses toward the upper back part of the head and ending at a point at least 4 inches above the EOP! Furthermore, there is no cluster of dozens of fragments in the test-skull x-rays, but there is an obvious one in the JFK skull x-rays.
Yes, as I've said repeatedly, the fragmentation pattern seen in the test-skull x-rays bears no resemblance to the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays.
And I notice you again ignored Olivier's comment that CEs 857 and 859 were "supposed" to contain the same number of fragments. But, clearly they do not. And this is where Specter took Olivier "off the record." Gee, I wonder why, hey?
I also notice that you only showed CE 859 and ignored CE 857. Is that because CE 859 contains more fragments than CE 857, even though they're supposed to contain the same fragments? You won't address the indications that CEs 857 and 859 contain fragments from more than just one bullet.
I also notice that you only used one of the test-skull x-rays. Why was that? Why didn't you also use the other one? I think we both know why. I think you know better than the falsehoods you are peddling.
[/b]
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 24, 2025, 01:17:47 PM ---LOL!!! Holy cow!!! Now compare that test-skull x-ray with the JFK skull x-rays!!! The test-skull x-ray has fragments scattered from a point just above the EOP to the right orbit. The JFK skull x-rays show no fragments anywhere near the EOP but shows fragments at least 2 inches higher in the top part of the skull, i.e., the cloud of fragments high in the right-frontal region and trailing to/from and upward to/from a sparse trail that courses toward the upper back part of the head and ending at a point at least 4 inches above the EOP! Furthermore, there is no cluster of dozens of fragments in the test-skull x-rays, but there is an obvious one in the JFK skull x-rays.
Yes, as I've said repeatedly, the fragmentation pattern seen in the test-skull x-rays bears no resemblance to the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays.
And I notice you again ignored Olivier's comment that CEs 857 and 859 were "supposed" to contain the same number of fragments. But, clearly they do not. And this is where Specter took Olivier "off the record." Gee, I wonder why, hey?
I also notice that you only showed CE 859 and ignored CE 857. Is that because CE 859 contains more fragments than CE 857, even though they're supposed to contain the same fragments? You won't address the indications that CEs 857 and 859 contain fragments from more than just one bullet.
I also notice that you only used one of the test-skull x-rays. Why was that? Why didn't you also use the other one? I think we both know why. I think you know better than the falsehoods you are peddling.
[/b]
--- End quote ---
I acknowledged that Olivier said that CE-857 and CE-859 contained the same fragments. As I just showed you above, Olivier stated that the fragments in CE-859 were all from one bullet. That disproves your own claim that they were not.
The tests done at Edgewood Arsenal for the WC prove that FMJ bullets do shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate human skulls.
Marjan Rynkiewicz:
In 1964 Olivier found no Carcano fragmentation inside 10 test human skulls filled with jelly.
In just one test the Carcano broke into 3 large pieces, after passing throo the skull.
All 10 tests were made 4" lower than the actual trajectory in 1963.
Some of the 10 tests exited via thick eye or nose bone.
Cyril Wecht agreed that a Carcano will not explode or disintegrate into dozens of pieces but can break into 2 or 3 pieces, and that the 1963 bullet behaved like a soft point or hollow point.
It was an accident, Hickey was just doing his job.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version