LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

[Tim Nickerson]

Question: Does anyone have pictures of both x-rays of the skull, one from the front and one from the side?

In any case, Sturdivan 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.

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]

Here is Sturdivan's quote from his book "The JFK Myths", Chapter Ten (Bungled Autopsy), Page 193:

I was referring to Sturdivan'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 Sturdivan 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"

In any case, Sturdivan does not believe that the same object appears in both x-rays.

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.

[Joe Elliott]

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.

That lateral X-ray helps a lot. Thank you.

Question:

Do we have regular photographs of the fragment that Humes removed?

Preferably from different angles?

[Joe Elliott]

Here's how one researcher tried to explain the roundness of the 7x2 mm fragment.

I take it that we just have the one view of the actual fragment?

I think this play-do model looks about right. The "round" object wasn't really all that round.

Sturdivan was mistaken about this just being an artifact. But I don't think it was a disk like object as is generally interpreted. It was just an irregularly shaped fragment. So it appears to be much ado about nothing.

[Tim Nickerson]

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18b-more-fun-with-x-rays

[Joe Elliott]

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18b-more-fun-with-x-rays

An interesting article by Pat Speer. It is a complex subject.

[Joe Elliott]

Here's how one researcher tried to explain the roundness of the 7x2 mm fragment.

Just to ask again, are these the only images we have of the 7x2 mm fragment, this gray object below the orange play-doh model in both the left and right photos?

Unless I see this fragment from other angles that proves otherwise, I think this fragment is the object visible in the two X-rays of JFK, from the front and the side.