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

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

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]

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.

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.

If there was a 6.5 mm object in the rear of the skull it would be visible in the right lateral X-Ray.

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?:

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.

Remember? Ring a bell? Does this refresh your memory?

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.

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.

[Mitch Todd]

You're quoting from my section on whether FMJ bullets leave numerous fragments inside a skull, not whether they ever deposit a fragment at/near the entry point on a skull. This is another severe problem with the lone-gunman scenario: FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate skulls. The FMJ bullets in the WC's wound ballistics test did not do this. Nor did the FMJ bullets in Lattimer's test. Nor did the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test.

I will charitably assume that you made an honest mistake here and simply failed to read the surrounding paragraphs and did not realize you were misrepresenting what DiMaoi said. Here's what DiMaoi said about FMJ bullets leaving numerous fragments (a "snowstorm") inside a skull (which we see in the right front on JFK's lateral autopsy x-ray):

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small
jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed
centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be
fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-
seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic
x-rays and one that will indicate thetype 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).

Did you just miss this? He specifically says that when FMJ bullets do fragment inside skulls, they leave "few" fragments, and that if the x-rays show numerous fragments ("lead snowstorm") this "rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition."

So Berg was not misrepresenting DiMaio. You are. DiMaio said that on those rare occasins when FMJ bullets fragment inside skulls they will produce "few" fragments, and that if x-rays show numerous fragments in the skull, this "rules out" FMJ ammo as the culprit. JFK's skull x-rays show a "snowstorm" of some 40 small fragments in the right-frontal area, which rules out FMJ ammo.

Now, as for DiMaio's statement about fragments being left at the entry site on skulls, he is clearly focusing on lead bullets fired from pistols. Then, he says that in rare cases ("rarely") the tip of an FMJ bullet will be deposited at the entry site, which has nothing to do with the fragments deposited on the outer table of JFK's skull because the nose and tail of the alleged offending FMJ bullet were recovered, which means those fragments would have to be from the cross-section of an FMJ bullet, a physical impossibility, as even wound ballistics expert Dr. Larry S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n has acknowledged.

I thought we all already knew that the nose and tail of the alleged Oswald FMJ headshot bullet were recovered and that therefore any fragments deposited near/at the entry site would have to come from the bullet's cross-section (composed of lead).

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)

I trust you're no longer wondering about this.

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) majority were aware of this problem in relation to the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. They had to address the issue thanks to Howard Donahue and Dr. Wecht. They said it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to deposit a fragment at/near the entry site on a skull, yet they did not cite a single case where this had occurred, either in their own experience or in cases documented in forensic literature. The FPP consisted of nine experienced forensic pathologists, yet none of them said they had ever seen an FMJ bullet behave in this manner, and they did not cite a single case published in forensic literature where this had occurred.

To avoid strained nit-picking, I guess I should clarify that never in the history of forensic science has an FMJ bullet deposited a fragment from its cross-section at/near the entry site on a skull. According to the lone-gunman theory, an FMJ bullet performed this impossible feat, and later its nose and tail were recovered from the limousine.

MG: You're quoting from my section on whether FMJ bullets leave numerous fragments inside a skull, not whether they ever deposit a fragment at/near the entry point on a skull.

I'm quoting the document that you referred me to, specifically the section titled "Shearing, FMJ Missiles, and the 6.5 mm Fragment in the JFK Autopsy X-Rays." The one that sayd things like:

"Ballistics expert and court-certified firearms expert Howard Donahue pointed out it was highly unlikely the 6.5 mm object seen in the x-rays could have come from the kind of ammunition allegedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald"

"Donahue interviewed several forensic pathologists about this subject, including Dr. Thomas Smith. All of them said they had never heard of an FMJ bullet behaving in this manner and that they considered such a scenario highly unlikely"

"(via Dr Fillinger) One can appreciate the fact that going through bone, which is not as hard as steel, may etch or scratch it, but it's not going to peel off much metal."

And the question you asked of Drs Green and Berg, ". Have you ever heard of an FMJ missile depositing a sizable bullet fragment on the outer table of the skull near the entry wound (i.e., as a result of the fragment being scraped off the jacket as the bullet entered the skull)?" To which Green replied "I think that it generally would not occur that an FMJ bullet would shear in pieces as it entered the skull or other bone."

Given all that, how on God's green earth could I have ever mistakenly thought that the section of text entitled "Shearing, FMJ Missiles, and the 6.5 mm Fragment in the JFK Autopsy X-Rays" would have anything to do with a bullet "ever deposit a fragment at/near the entry point on a skull?"

Do you not actually know what you wrote right there?


MG: I will charitably assume that you made an honest mistake here and simply failed to read the surrounding paragraphs and did not realize you were misrepresenting what DiMiao said.

I misrepresented nothing. DiMaio said, "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. (...) Rarely, the tip of the jacket of a full metal jacketed bullet is so deposited." This statement is self-contained and does not rely on any other statement in his book. It is direct, consicse...and inescapable. Your attempt to shoehorn  a "snowstorm" and these other things into the conversation is nothing more than your attempt to create a smokescreen by burning a pile of red herrings. Even then, DiMaio's Figure 11.4 shows a bullet that generated something like a 100 fragments, maybe more, even though it penereated the soft tissues of the abdomen and didn't strike bone. JFK's x-rays, on the other hand, reveal ~20-30 fragments, even though the bullet struck the hard bone of the skull on entry. The two cases really aren't comparable other than they both involve a fragmenting bullet. Figure 11.5, shows the result of a .357 Magnum round hitting some poor soul right square in the noggin. .357 Magnum is considerably less energetic than 6.5x52 Carcano (~700 ft*lbs vs 1700 ft*lbs, respectively). However, even this less-energetic pistol round generated more fragmentation than what we see in the JFK x-rays. If anything, the example figures in DiMaio's book argue for the head wounds being caused by an FMJ bullet rather than the other way around.

DiMiao himself was retained as a medical forensics expert by the ARRB. What did he say then about the case?


MG: I thought we all already knew that the nose and tail of the alleged Oswald FMJ headshot bullet were recovered and that therefore any fragments deposited near/at the entry site would have to come from the bullet's cross-section (composed of lead).

In the immortal words of Tonto: "What you mean by 'we,' Kimo Sabe?" CE567 represents part of the forward section of the bullet, but not all off it. Most of the tip and the adjacent areas thereto are missing, enough to account for the 6.5mm opacity.


MG: 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

So what? the issue at hand is where you go the notion that "No FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less multiple fragments, at/near the entry point when striking a skull." Whether or not S+erdivan ever saw such a thing is immaterial if others, i.e. DiMaio or the FPP, have.


MG: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) majority were aware of this problem in relation to the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. They had to address the issue thanks to Howard Donahue and Dr. Wecht.

I doubt the FPP had any idea who Donahue was at the time. And Wecht's contemporaneous views are recorded in his testimony to HSCA as well as his dissenting screed appended to the FPPs report. I do not recall him bringing up this particular issue in either.
 

MG: I trust you're no longer wondering about this.

The only thing I'm wondering is, where you keep your head at.

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

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?:

Remember? Ring a bell? Does this refresh your memory?

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.

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. 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.

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.  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.   

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.

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.