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 December 20, 2022, 11:53:19 PM ---There aren't two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. The 6.5 mm object is the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and above the right eye.
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
--- End quote ---
This nonsense again? You can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, so how could they be the same object? The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the skull, while the 6.5 mm object is on the rear outer table of the skull, and it is below and to the right of the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray.
There's also the fact that dozens of OD measurements have confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but that it has been neatly superimposed over the image of a genuine 2.5 mm bullet fragment located on the rear outer table of the skull. This is why the 6.5 mm object is not seen on the lateral x-ray. As forensic radiologist Dr. Fitzpatrick confirmed for the ARRB, there is no object on the lateral x-ray that corresponds in density and brightness to the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. It does not take a genius to figure out that this is a physical impossibility unless the AP x-ray has been altered. Even SPersonivan says this is impossible, which is one reason he theorizes that the 6.5 mm object is an accidental artifact, although he has no credible scenario for how such a perfectly shaped artifact could have been accidentally formed.
Obviously, Humes's speculation that the 6.5 mm object could be the 7 x 2 mm fragment is ridiculous. Remember that Humes also told the ARRB that he did not--I repeat, did not--see the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, even though it is the largest and most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray. It is hard to imagine how even Humes could have blundered so embarrassingly as to suggest that two objects that are plainly visible on the AP x-ray could be the same object, but this is the kind of gaffe you make when you're reaching and grasping.
And what about the McDonnel fragment? I notice you said nothing about it. Ignoring it won't make it go away. OD measurements confirm that it is a bullet fragment.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on December 21, 2022, 01:04:23 PM ---This nonsense again? You can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, so how could they be the same object? The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the skull, while the 6.5 mm object is on the rear outer table of the skull, and it is below and to the right of the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray.
There's also the fact that dozens of OD measurements have confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but that it has been neatly superimposed over the image of a genuine 2.5 mm bullet fragment located on the rear outer table of the skull. This is why the 6.5 mm object is not seen on the lateral x-ray. As forensic radiologist Dr. Fitzpatrick confirmed for the ARRB, there is no object on the lateral x-ray that corresponds in density and brightness to the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. It does not take a genius to figure out that this is a physical impossibility unless the AP x-ray has been altered. Even SPersonivan says this is impossible, which is one reason he theorizes that the 6.5 mm object is an accidental artifact, although he has no credible scenario for how such a perfectly shaped artifact could have been accidentally formed.
Obviously, Humes's speculation that the 6.5 mm object could be the 7 x 2 mm fragment is ridiculous. Remember that Humes also told the ARRB that he did not--I repeat, did not--see the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, even though it is the largest and most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray. It is hard to imagine how even Humes could have blundered so embarrassingly as to suggest that two objects that are plainly visible on the AP x-ray could be the same object, but this is the kind of gaffe you make when you're reaching and grasping.
And what about the McDonnel fragment? I notice you said nothing about it. Ignoring it won't make it go away. OD measurements confirm that it is a bullet fragment.
--- End quote ---
Draw an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the enhanced AP X-Ray. Do the same on the enhanced right lateral view.
The inability to see the 6.5 mm object in the rear of the skull in the right lateral view suggests that it's not there. Claiming that the X-rays are altered is just loony. 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 one of the techs who took them.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on December 23, 2022, 08:16:44 AM ---Draw an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the enhanced AP X-Ray. Do the same on the enhanced right lateral view.
The inability to see the 6.5 mm object in the rear of the skull in the right lateral view suggests that it's not there.
--- End quote ---
When are you going to face the fact that the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both visible on the AP x-ray? When?
Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment. He said--and the x-rays confirm--that it was in the front part of the skull. It boggles the mind to try to fathom why Humes would not have removed the 6.5 mm object if it had been on the x-rays during the autopsy. Why would he have removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment and not also removed the most obvious apparent fragment on the AP x-ray?
And I notice you are still ignoring the OD measurements. This is hard science. We now know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that it has been superimposed over the image of a small genuine fragment on the rear outer table of the skull. OD measurements confirm that the 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object is metallic.
Even Larry SPersonivan now admits that the 6.5 mm object is a superimposed image; he argues that it was superimposed by accident, but he has no rational theory for how this alleged accident could have occurred.
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on December 23, 2022, 08:16:44 AM ---Claiming that the X-rays are altered is just loony. 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 one of the techs who took them.
--- End quote ---
None of those experts had the benefit of OD analysis. None of them realized the telltale signs of alteration in the emulsion of the x-rays. None of them explained the physically impossible conflict between the AP x-ray and the lateral x-rays regarding the 6.5 mm object. None of them even detected that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. None of them offered any explanation for the impossible white patch on the right lateral x-ray. None of them offered any explanation for the stark contradiction between the skull x-rays and the alleged autopsy photos of the brain.
The radiologist and the x-ray tech did not do any kind of an analysis of the skull x-rays. They were shown the x-rays during their interviews and simply declared, based on this brief look, that they believed the x-rays were the same ones they had taken. Yet, the radiologist refused to discuss the 6.5 mm object with Dr. Mantik and said nothing about it in his testimony. The x-ray tech did numerous interviews with Dr. Mantik and not once did he claim that he had seen the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy or that the radiologist had identified a large object as an artifact.
Why do the extant skull x-rays show no trace of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? The only theoretically possible--but utterly preposterous--innocent explanation for this conflict is that the autopsy doctors committed the mind-boggling blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail that was at least 2 inches lower and that started on the opposite side of the skull. Just think, just try to fathom, how even a first-year med student could make such an astonishing error, especially when they had the x-rays and the skull in front of them for over three hours.
Why did Humes say nothing about the right-frontal cloud of fragments plainly visible on the extant right lateral x-ray? He said nothing about it in the autopsy report and nothing about it in his WC testimony. He repeatedly said that the only grouping of small fragments he saw was in the form of a fragment trail that went from the EOP to the right orbit. The cloud of fragments on the extant x-rays looks nothing like this; it is in the right-frontal region, some 5 inches from the EOP on the opposite end of the skull, and the fragments next to it trail upward.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on December 27, 2022, 05:44:50 PM ---When are you going to face the fact that the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both visible on the AP x-ray? When?
--- End quote ---
When are you going to post the enhanced AP and lateral X-Rays with your arrows pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in them? When?
--- Quote ---Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment. He said--and the x-rays confirm--that it was in the front part of the skull.
--- End quote ---
Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue".
Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there (on CE-388), are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.
--- Quote ---It boggles the mind to try to fathom why Humes would not have removed the 6.5 mm object if it had been on the x-rays during the autopsy. Why would he have removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment and not also removed the most obvious apparent fragment on the AP x-ray?
--- End quote ---
Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficuity, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on December 28, 2022, 01:23:58 AM ---When are you going to post the enhanced AP and lateral X-Rays with your arrows pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in them? When?
Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue".
Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there (on CE-388), are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.
Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficuity, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.
--- End quote ---
This is just comical, and rather odd. It's like you don't understand what's being said to you, or you just can't bring yourself to deal with it. Let's get a few things straight:
One, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above the right eye and slightly behind it. That's where Humes found it when he removed it. Nobody but nobody who has seen the AP x-ray denies that the 6.5 mm object is, according to the x-ray, on the back of the skull. Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment from the frontal part of the skull.
Two, again, you can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. Both are visible. One is not the other. A 6.5 mm object is not a 7 x 2 mm object. What do you not understand about this basic truth of reality?
Every single expert panel or private expert that has examined the AP x-ray has identified the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on that x-ray. It is ludicrous to suggest that some version of the AP x-ray does not show both objects.
Three, when the ARRB specifically asked Humes about the 6.5 mm object, he said he did not see it during the autopsy. So, obviously, he did not remove it, and, equally obviously, it was not the fragment he was talking about with Specter.
Four, Reed and Custer most certainly did not "identify it without hesitation" during the autopsy. Custer spent many hours talking with Dr. Mantik about the x-rays, and never once, not one single time, did he claim that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy.
Five, I notice you again ignored the fact that OD measurements confirm that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, and even Larry SPersonivan has conceded that the object is not, and cannot be, an FMJ bullet fragment but that it must be an artifact. The only question is, how was this artifact created? So, it is just silly and strange that you keep claiming that Humes removed it during the autopsy. Not only did Humes tell the ARRB that he did not see it during the autopsy, but we now know from hard scientific evidence that the object is not metallic.
Six, OD measurements confirm that inside the 6.5 mm object is a 2.5 mm bullet fragment. This fragment is not readily visible to the naked eye, because its image is obscured by the bright 6.5 mm object, but it is visible under high magnification, and its metallic nature is confirmed by OD measurements.
Seven, I notice you once again ignored the McDonnel fragment. Why do you keep ignoring this crucial piece of evidence? Because your theory of the shooting has no rational, plausible explanation for it? If the 6.5 mm object, as SPersonivan admits, cannot be a bullet fragment from an FMJ bullet, then the McDonnel fragment surely cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment either.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version