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

[Michael T. Griffith]

Let us, at least temporarily, move beyond the dubious evasions and misrepresentations of those who can't admit that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when hitting a skull and who can't admit that the fragmentation in the WC's test-skull x-rays looks nothing like the fragmentation in the JFK skull x-rays. Let us get back to the core problems posed by the back-of-head fragments:

The McDonnell fragment is 1 cm below the cowlick entry site and is slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment that is inside the image of the 6.5 mm object. The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment plowed through both the galea and the pericranium and embedded itself in the outer table, while the McDonnel fragment plowed through the galea but stopped in the pericranium. The pericranium is the area between the galea and the outer table. The galea and pericranium are both dense, tough fibrous membranes that cover the outer table. WC apologists have no rational, credible answers to the three obvious questions raised by these facts:

One, how would a bullet striking the skull at a downward angle have sheared off two fragments below the entry site? As firearms expert Howard Donahue noted, basic physics and common sense tell us that any shearing would have occurred at the top of the entry site, since the bullet was striking at a downward angle.

Two, how would either of these supposedly sheared-off fragments have ended up 1 cm below the entry site if the bullet struck the skull at a downward angle?

Three, how would one fragment end up on the outer table of the skull and the other fragment end up in the pericranium if both fragments were sheared off?

Obviously, the two fragments were not sheared off but hit the skull at different velocities and at a perpendicular angle, causing one to penetrate more deeply than the other, which is exactly what you'd expect from ricochet fragments.

Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object "looked like a ricochet fragment" (Mortal Error, p. 65). The Clark Panel, like the HSCA medical panel, did not have the benefit of OD measurements, so they did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that its image was superimposed over the image of a somewhat smaller genuine fragment (the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment). But Fisher's comment to Donahue shows the Clark Panel members realized that no FMJ bullet could have deposited such a sizable a fragment on the outer table of the skull, much less two fragments, even if they were unwilling to say so publicly.

[Tim Nickerson]

Let us, at least temporarily, move beyond the dubious evasions and misrepresentations of those who can't admit that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when hitting a skull and who can't admit that the fragmentation in the WC's test-skull x-rays looks nothing like the fragmentation in the JFK skull x-rays. Let us get back to the core problems posed by the back-of-head fragments:

The tests done at Edgewood Arsenal for the WC demonstrated that FMJ bullets do shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when hitting a skull. That is not something that reasonable people would deny. You are not reasonable.




There were no metal fragments in the back of the head. The 7 x 2mm fragment removed by Humes was behind the right eye. It was not imbedded in the frontal skull bone. The "6.5mm" object seen in the anterior X-Ray view is that 7 x 2mm fragment.




 

[Michael T. Griffith]

The tests done at Edgewood Arsenal for the WC demonstrated that FMJ bullets do shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when hitting a skull. That is not something that reasonable people would deny. You are not reasonable.

No, you are simply ignoring self-evident facts that refute your fiction. You keep repeating the same erroneous claims and ignoring facts that refute them. CE 859 does not show dozens of tiny fragments. It shows at least 10 sizable fragments and some smaller fragments. You know that CE 857 shows even fewer fragments, which I suspect is why you chose not to cite it or post it. You also know that Specter felt compelled to take Olivier "off the record" after Olivier implied that CEs 857 and 859 do not contain the same number of fragments although they were "supposed to"--anyone can see they do not.

And I notice you once again ducked the issue of the WC test-skull x-rays and the fact that their fragmentation pattern looks nothing like the pattern we see in the JFK skull x-rays.

There were no metal fragments in the back of the head. The 7 x 2mm fragment removed by Humes was behind the right eye. It was not imbedded in the frontal skull bone. The "6.5mm" object seen in the anterior X-Ray view is that 7 x 2mm fragment.

LOL! The 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are both plainly visible on the AP x-ray. The 7 x 2 mm fragment is above and slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and they have very different shapes, as anyone can readily see on your own graphic! So it is just weird that you keep claiming they are the same object.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you repeat such bizarre, demonstrably false claims? Honestly, part of me suspects that you are a closet conspiracy theorist who is here to make WC apologists look unserious and unbelievable.

I notice you once again ducked the issue of the McDonnel fragment, which is in the rear outer table of the skull and slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object in the skull x-rays. The fragment was identified by Dr. Gerald M. McDonnel, an expert diagnostic radiologist consulted by the HSCA, and was noted in the HSCA FPP's documents. Dr. David Mantik has confirmed the McDonnel fragment via optical-density (OD) measurements. FYI, as a radiation oncologist, he specializes in taking and using OD measurements.

And, as I've mentioned to you several times, two independent sets of OD measurements, one done by Dr. Mantik and the other done by neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser, also confirm that there is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm genuine fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object, and that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but is a ghosted image. The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment's density is vastly smaller than the 6.5 mm object's physically impossible density, which explains why the 6.5 mm object does not appear on the lateral x-ray but why the much-less-dense 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment does appear thereon.

Ignoring hard scientific evidence won't make it go away.

[Tim Nickerson]

No, you are simply ignoring self-evident facts that refute your fiction. You keep repeating the same erroneous claims and ignoring facts that refute them. CE 859 does not show dozens of tiny fragments. It shows at least 10 sizable fragments and some smaller fragments. You know that CE 857 shows even fewer fragments, which I suspect is why you chose not to cite it or post it. You also know that Specter felt compelled to take Olivier "off the record" after Olivier implied that CEs 857 and 859 do not contain the same number of fragments although they were "supposed to"--anyone can see they do not.

Most of the fragments in CE-859 have no real size to them. That is, they can't rightfully be described as sizable. I notice that you changed your original claim of "FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate skulls" to "FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when hitting a skull". Why did you do that?

And I notice you once again ducked the issue of the WC test-skull x-rays and the fact that their fragmentation pattern looks nothing like the pattern we see in the JFK skull x-rays.

Why should we expect the fragmentation pattern in the WC test-skull x-rays to match the pattern we see in the JFK skull x-rays?

"The lead fragments in the test skull show a clearer path of the bullet, as they stayed in place after the shot. Many of the fragments deposited in the President’s brain were flushed out, along with the brain tissue, as the large amount of blood flowed out of the explosive wound in the side of his head, in the car and in Parkland. It is evidently some of these that were deposited on the bone flaps by clotting blood that show as a “trail” of fragments near the top of the lateral view. This “trail” does not show on the frontal view, and is much higher than the FPP’s reconstructed trajectory. In fact, at the apparent location of these fragments there was no brain matter in which the fragments could be embedded."

Sturdivan, Larry M.. JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (p. 192). Paragon House. Kindle Edition.

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Myths-Scientific-Investigation-Assassination/dp/1557788472

LOL! The 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are both plainly visible on the AP x-ray. The 7 x 2 mm fragment is above and slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and they have very different shapes, as anyone can readily see on your own graphic! So it is just weird that you keep claiming they are the same object.

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.

Where is the fragment that is seen imbedded in the frontal skull bone in the lateral view visible in the anterior view? Point it out to me.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Most of the fragments in CE-859 have no real size to them. That is, they can't rightfully be described as sizable. I notice that you changed your original claim of "FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate skulls" to "FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when hitting a skull". Why did you do that?

That's just different verbiage that's saying essentially the same thing. I usually say "penetrating" but sometimes say "hitting."

Why should we expect the fragmentation pattern in the WC test-skull x-rays to match the pattern we see in the JFK skull x-rays?

Is this a serious question? I hope not. 

"The lead fragments in the test skull show a clearer path of the bullet, as they stayed in place after the shot. Many of the fragments deposited in the President’s brain were flushed out, along with the brain tissue, as the large amount of blood flowed out of the explosive wound in the side of his head, in the car and in Parkland. It is evidently some of these that were deposited on the bone flaps by clotting blood that show as a “trail” of fragments near the top of the lateral view. This “trail” does not show on the frontal view, and is much higher than the FPP’s reconstructed trajectory. In fact, at the apparent location of these fragments there was no brain matter in which the fragments could be embedded."
Sturdivan, Larry M.. JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (p. 192). Paragon House. Kindle Edition.

This is the kind of confusion and silliness you get from experts who refuse to follow the evidence where it leads. When Sturdivan was writing this stuff, he apparently forgot that in the WC's wound ballistics head-shot test, they simulated brain tissue by placing gelatin in the cadaver skulls, and that the autopsy doctors said that the skull x-rays that they took and examined showed a trail of fragments starting at the EOP site and coursing upward to the right orbit. He apparently also forgot that the extant autopsy brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum or to the right-rear parietal lobe, which means, if these photos are genuine, that there would have been brain tissue in which the EOP-to-right-orbit fragments could have lodged. He apparently also forgot that the autopsy doctors said that part of the exit wound extended into the occiput, yet no such wound is seen in the current autopsy photos. He apparently also forgot that dozens of witnesses, including medical personnel and federal agents, said the exit wound was in the right-rear part of the skull, not above the right ear. And he also seemed to forget that the exit wounds in the WC test skulls looked nothing like JFK's exit wound.

And on and on we could go.

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.

Where is the fragment that is seen imbedded in the frontal skull bone in the lateral view visible in the anterior view? Point it out to me.

Are you serious? As I've explained to you several times, and as Humes himself made clear, Humes was referring to the 7 x 2 mm fragment. The 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from behind the right orbital ridge. In the autopsy report, Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed “from the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex” (p. 4). In his WC testimony, Humes said the 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from “above and somewhat behind the President’s eye” (2 H 354). Humes said the two fragments that he removed were 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm in size. He measured them after he removed them.

Why are we still even talking about this?

Dr. Mantik points out that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm back-of-head fragment 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site is only 3-4 mm thick but that the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement shows that it would be nearly 40 mm thick if it were actually metallic; in contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is 2 mm thick on the lateral x-rays, which is consistent with its OD measurement of 1.44 (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 24).

In OD measurements, larger numbers mean less density, while smaller numbers mean more density. As mentioned, the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement is an impossible 0.60, 0.84 lower than that of the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Even more revealing, the OD measurement of the four dental fillings combined is 0.76, 0.16 higher than the 6.5 mm object's measurement. Thus, if the 6.5 mm object were a bullet fragment, it would be denser than all four dental fillings combined, an obvious impossibility and a clear indication of forgery.

[Michael T. Griffith]

This is the kind of confusion and silliness you get from experts who refuse to follow the evidence where it leads. When Sturdivan was writing this stuff, he apparently forgot that in the WC's wound ballistics head-shot test, they simulated brain tissue by placing gelatin in the cadaver skulls, and that the autopsy doctors said that the skull x-rays that they took and examined showed a trail of fragments starting at the EOP site and coursing upward to the right orbit. He apparently also forgot that the extant autopsy brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum or to the right-rear parietal lobe, which means, if these photos are genuine, that there would have been brain tissue in which the EOP-to-right-orbit fragments could have lodged. He apparently also forgot that the autopsy doctors said that part of the exit wound extended into the occiput, yet no such wound is seen in the current autopsy photos. He apparently also forgot that dozens of witnesses, including medical personnel and federal agents, said the exit wound was in the right-rear part of the skull, not above the right ear. And he also seemed to forget that the exit wounds in the WC test skulls looked nothing like JFK's exit wound.

And on and on we could go.

Are you serious? As I've explained to you several times, and as Humes himself made clear, Humes was referring to the 7 x 2 mm fragment. The 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from behind the right orbital ridge. In the autopsy report, Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed “from the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex” (p. 4). In his WC testimony, Humes said the 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from “above and somewhat behind the President’s eye” (2 H 354). Humes said the two fragments that he removed were 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm in size. He measured them after he removed them.

Why are we still even talking about this?

Dr. Mantik points out that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm back-of-head fragment 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site is only 3-4 mm thick but that the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement shows that it would be nearly 40 mm thick if it were actually metallic; in contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is 2 mm thick on the lateral x-rays, which is consistent with its OD measurement of 1.44 (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 24).

In OD measurements, larger numbers mean less density, while smaller numbers mean more density. As mentioned, the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement is an impossible 0.60, 0.84 lower than that of the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Even more revealing, the OD measurement of the four dental fillings combined is 0.76, 0.16 higher than the 6.5 mm object's measurement. Thus, if the 6.5 mm object were a bullet fragment, it would be denser than all four dental fillings combined, an obvious impossibility and a clear indication of forgery.

Just bumping this thread to remind readers that WC apologists have no credible explanation for the back-of-head bullet fragments, for the 6.5 mm object, for the autopsy doctors' failure to mention the high fragment trail, and for the fact that the extant autopsy x-rays do not show the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail described in the autopsy report and reaffirmed by the autopsy doctors after viewing the autopsy materials for five hours in 1966.

[Jack Nessan]

Just bumping this thread to remind readers that WC apologists have no credible explanation for the back-of-head bullet fragments, for the 6.5 mm object, for the autopsy doctors' failure to mention the high fragment trail, and for the fact that the extant autopsy x-rays do not show the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail described in the autopsy report and reaffirmed by the autopsy doctors after viewing the autopsy materials for five hours in 1966.

.."and for the fact that the extant autopsy x-rays do not show the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail"

Because there was no brain left to leave a trail in. Even you seem to understand that or you did once, anyway.

MG-- "As I said, Dr. Hodges’ observation that in the skull x-rays “a goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing” has been confirmed by several experts, including Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar. Dr. Mantik confirmed this both with direct analysis and with OD measurements, determining that over one-half of the right side of the brain is missing in the skull x-rays.
 
Further confirmation of this comes from a surprising source: Dr. James Humes. Humes admitted to JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], May 27, 1992, p. 2798).
 
We also know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including the windshields of the two left-trailing patrolmen, the windshield of the follow-up car, Agent Kinney's clothes, Jackie's dress, the rear hood, and on several surfaces inside the limo."