The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail: An Unsolvable Problem for WC Apologists

[Michael T. Griffith]

Two of the monumental problems facing lone-gunman theorists, two problems they have yet to credibly explain, involve the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report and the obvious high fragment trail on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.

The autopsy doctors wrote in the autopsy report, and repeated in their WC testimony, that during the autopsy they observed a fragment trail that ran upward from the rear head entry wound, which they said was slightly above the external occipital protuberance (EOP), to a point just above the right eye, i.e., the right supraorbital ridge. The supraorbital ridge is also called the brow ridge because it is the bone beneath your eyebrows. I quote the autopsy report:

Roentgenograms [x-rays] of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above- described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge. (p. 4).

However, no such fragment trail appears on the existing autopsy skull x-rays. This fact was confirmed by the HSCA’s medical panel (FPP), was confirmed by the three ARRB forensic experts, and has been confirmed by numerous private experts, including Dr. David Mantik, Dr. Mike Chesser, Dr. Robert Livingston, Dr. John Lattimer, and Dr. Gary Aguilar.

The only fragment trail that appears on the extant skull x-rays is the high fragment trail that is plainly visible near the top of the head. It is a whopping 5.9 inches (15 cm) above the EOP. The majority of the fragments in the trail are clustered in the right-front part of the skull. Incredibly, the autopsy report says nothing about this fragment trail—absolutely nothing, not one word.

The high fragment trail is also 1.9 inches (5 cm) above the alleged “revised” entry site that was proposed by other experts years after the autopsy, i.e., the cowlick entry site. The cowlick site, first proposed by the Clark Panel in 1968, then the Rockefeller Commission’s medical panel in 1975, and then the FPP in 1979, is markedly higher than the autopsy report’s EOP site—it is 3.93 inches (10 cm) above the EOP site. The extreme implausibility that three pathologists could so severely mislocate the entry wound is another major problem for the lone-gunman theory, but I will not discuss it in this post.

There are only three explanations for why the existing autopsy skull x-rays do not show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report:

One, the autopsy doctors committed the unbelievable blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail (1) that started a whopping 5.9 inches (15 cm) lower, (2) that was in a different bone of the skull (parietal vs. occipital), and (3) that ran at a downward angle instead of an upward angle from the back of the head, even though they had the EOP, the lambdoid suture, and the lambda as reference points (keep in mind they reflected the scalp so they could examine the wound in the skull). A first-year medical student would not make such an astonishing blunder.

Two, the autopsy doctors saw no fragment trail that ran from the EOP to the right eyebrow but falsely said they did (1) because they wanted to strengthen the case for the EOP entry site, (2) because the high fragment trail did not align with the EOP site, and (3) because there was no wound on the back of the head that they could associate with the high fragment trail.

Three, the low fragment trail was removed from the autopsy x-rays, or its fragments were removed from the skull and the skull was then x-rayed again, because some of the people involved in the medical cover-up recognized that the low fragment trail, like the EOP entry site, would pose unsolvable problems for the lone-gunman theory.

If the low fragment trail was present in Kennedy’s skull on the night of the autopsy, the people who were running the medical cover-up decided to get rid of it. Why would they have done this? Because the low fragment trail supported the EOP entry site, and because they could not allow the autopsy skull x-rays to show two separate fragment trails, since this would have clearly indicated two head shots.

Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who has examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, has concluded that those who were doing the medical cover-up moved the rear head entry wound partly because the EOP site and the autopsy report’s exit point do not line up with the high fragment trail:

I think that one of the reasons they moved the entry wound up was due to the fragment particle trail shown in the right lateral skull x-ray. If a line is drawn from the Warren Commission entry site and the proposed exit site, you’ll notice that the particle trail doesn’t correspond with these sites. The prominent particle trail is located in the upper portion of the skull.

Now if you do the same for the HSCA entry and exit sites, you’ll notice that the line is closer to the particle trail, but it still doesn’t seem to correspond. (Michael Chesser, “A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs,” 2015, http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/.)

Dr. Chesser then explains why the high fragment trail is consistent with a shot to the right-frontal region:

I am just one of many who believe that the entry site responsible for this particle trail was in the right frontal region, at or just above the hairline. If you notice the location, I’ve moved it up slightly from the skull defect which I think represents the entry site, because the right side of the frontal bone had separated and had dropped in relation to the left frontal skull. (“A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs”)

[John Corbett]

Your FUBAR attempt at playing forensic pathologist isn't a problem for anybody. We can just ignore you or poke fun at your efforts. Our choice.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Your FUBAR attempt at playing forensic pathologist isn't a problem for anybody. We can just ignore you or poke fun at your efforts. Our choice.

This is a clownish, discrediting, and revealing dodge.

No one denies that the autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that ran upward from the EOP to the right eyebrow. No one denies that the autopsy report says nothing about a fragment trail near the top of the head, 15 cm (5.9 inches) above the EOP. No one denies that the autopsy doctors said the entry wound was near the middle of the occipital bone but that the cowlick entry site is in the parietal bone, 1 cm above the lambda. And no one denies that the extant autopsy skull x-rays show no fragment trail from the EOP to the right eyebrow. No one. As in no one.

So how do you explain these facts? Answer: You duck them with another frivolous dodge.

As any honest observer can see, I am actually not "playing forensic pathologist" at all. I am simply pointing out what numerous experts on both sides have discussed on this key issue. If you would ever bother to read the transcripts of Finck, Boswell, and Humes's exchanges with the FPP during their HSCA testimony, you would see that the absence of a fragment trail and wound pattern from the EOP to the right eye was a major, intense point of disagreement and controversy, a dispute that became so severe that at one point Finck actually questioned how the skull x-rays had been authenticated.

I notice you said nothing about Dr. Chesser's comments on the problems that the high fragment trail and the autopsy report's entry site location pose for the lone-gunman theory. FYI, Dr. Chesser is a board-certified neurologist who has not only examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives but has also examined JFK's pre-mortem x-rays at the Kennedy Library in Boston.

[John Corbett]

This is a clownish, discrediting, and revealing dodge.

No one denies that the autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that ran upward from the EOP to the right eyebrow. No one denies that the autopsy report says nothing about a fragment trail near the top of the head, 15 cm (5.9 inches) above the EOP. No one denies that the autopsy doctors said the entry wound was near the middle of the occipital bone but that the cowlick entry site is in the parietal bone, 1 cm above the lambda. And no one denies that the extant autopsy skull x-rays show no fragment trail from the EOP to the right eyebrow. No one. As in no one.

So how do you explain these facts? Answer: You duck them with another frivolous dodge.

I'd be more interested in how you explain the discrepancy. You're the one trying to make the case for a conspiracy. You need to provide that evidence for that.

As any honest observer can see, I am actually not "playing forensic pathologist" at all. I am simply pointing out what numerous experts on both sides have discussed on this key issue. If you would ever bother to read the transcripts of Finck, Boswell, and Humes's exchanges with the FPP during their HSCA testimony, you would see that the absence of a fragment trail and wound pattern from the EOP to the right eye was a major, intense point of disagreement and controversy, a dispute that became so severe that at one point Finck actually questioned how the skull x-rays had been authenticated.

You have identified a disagreement between the autopsy team and the FPP. Now tell us what you think it means and why.

I notice you said nothing about Dr. Chesser's comments on the problems that the high fragment trail and the autopsy report's entry site location pose for the lone-gunman theory. FYI, Dr. Chesser is a board-certified neurologist who has not only examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives but has also examined JFK's pre-mortem x-rays at the Kennedy Library in Boston.

Goody. Now explain what this anomaly proves. That's a step I never see the CTs take. They think it suffices just to identify an anomaly as if that proves anything. If you want to prove something, you need to resolve the conflict. Simply identifying it doesn't prove squat.

[Michael T. Griffith]

It is worth noting that in his ARRB interview in 1996, Dr. Humes was shown the lateral JFK autopsy skull x-ray and was asked to identify the EOP-to-right-eyebrow fragment trail described in the autopsy report. After a pause and with an embarrassed look on his face (per Doug Horne, who was present), Humes admitted he could not, and he acknowledged he could see fragments higher on the skull on the lateral x-ray:

Q. I'd like you to see if you could identify where you understand the entrance wound to have been on the skull, looking at this lateral X-ray.
A. Well, back in this area [pointing to the EOP].
Q. You're referring to the very low back of the cranium. . . . Do you see any fragments, stellate or otherwise, that would be consistent with an entry wound in that point?
A. Well, there's no fragments there. There's fragments or what appear to be fragments up higher towards the vertex in this picture. (Deposition of Dr. James Humes, ARRB, February 13, 1996, pp. 216-217)

Humes was asked about the vanishing fragment trail and the rear head entry wound's location because these had already been issues for years. They caused major contention between the autopsy doctors and the HSCA's medical panel (FPP). WC skeptics had understandably cited these issues as raising questions about the authenticity of the autopsy evidence.

In contrast, nearly all lone-gunman theorists have always uncritically and vacuously assumed that the autopsy doctors simply erred in their descriptions of the entry wound and the fragment trail, as if these errors were minor and understandable. A notable exception is Dr. Larry Sturdivan, a former HSCA wound ballistics consultant and physicist. In his 2005 book The JFK Myths, Sturdivan rejects the cowlick entry site and argues that the autopsy doctors were correct in locating the entry wound near the EOP.   

Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist who has done numerous optical-density measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays at the National Archives, argues that the 7x2 mm fragment above the right orbit on the x-rays is likely a remnant of the EOP-to-right-eyebrow fragment trail, although no other trace of the trail appears on the x-rays:

The autopsy report describes a fragment trail from the EOP to the right parietal bone to the right supraorbital ridge. This trail is not present in the extant X-rays, but perhaps such a trail did exist before these fragments were removed, i.e., perhaps Humes told the truth in his autopsy report. It is even possible, if not likely, that the 7x2 mm metal fragment above the right orbit was part of that trail. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 92)

Dr. Mantik makes the key point that the 7x2 mm fragment cannot be associated with the high fragment trail:

It [the high fragment trail] is truly inconsistent with the location of the 7x2 mm fragment above JFK’s right eye. . . . This 7x2 mm fragment lies well off the debris trail (Figure 6). (p. 91)

Just keep in mind that if the EOP site is correct, this means, among other things, that the bullet could not have been fired from the sixth-floor window. The WC's experts could only make the EOP site line up with the sixth-floor window by assuming that JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck. No photo or footage shows him leaning anywhere near that far forward when the head shot occurred. 

[Lance Payette]

That retching sound you hear is MTG regurgitating yet another batch of the same old, same old.

Here is the essentially identical thread, with the same title, from 2023 at the Ed Forum: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29157-the-vanishing-low-fragment-trail-and-wc-apologists/#comment-502109.

Since Pat Speer participates extensively and pretty well kicks MTG's fanny, it actually might be worth reading. FWIW, MTG says in response to one of Speer's criticisms of Mantik (relating to Mantik's close association with Fetzer), "As for 9/11, he [Mantik] said he is open to the possibility of controlled demolitions but stressed that he has done no research on the subject and is not an expert on the matter." But here, no more than two days ago, MTG was referencing Mantik's supposed work on 9/11. And on it goes.

At the 2023 thread, MTG begins by saying "In other forums, I have tried repeatedly to get WC apologists to explain the fact that the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the extant autopsy skull x-rays." And yet here we go again. What must it be like to have this obsessive loop playing in your head, over and over and over?

I have no personal axe to grind with MTG. He's just such a perfect example of the lunatic fringe CTer that I'd almost have to invent him if he didn't exist.

Here is Pat Speer's extensive chapter on the head wound: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

Here are his two chapters on Mantik, "Stuck in the Middle with You" and "Dr. Mantik's Flying Circus": https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19d-stuck-in-the-middle-with-you, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19e-dr-mantiks-flying-circus

[Michael T. Griffith]

In a supreme display of selectivity and confirmation bias, the same lone-gunman theorists who claim that all three autopsy doctors, including Dr. Finck, who was a board-certified forensic pathologist, (1) mistook a wound 1 cm above the lambda in the parietal bone for a wound 1 cm above the EOP in the occipital bone, even though they had the hairline, the lambda, and the EOP as reference points, and even though they reflected the scalp and examined the wound from the interior of the skull, and (2) mistook the plainly obvious downward-trajectory fragment trail near the top of the skull that goes nowhere near the back of the head for an upward-trajectory fragment trail at least 2 inches lower and that started very near the back of the head—the same lone-gunman theorists who accuse the autopsy doctors of making these astonishing blunders turn around and assure us that the autopsy doctors accurately described the exit wound on the head! 

I must confess that when I first became aware of the relocation of the rear head entry wound shortly after I began to study the assassination, I merely assumed this was further proof that the autopsy doctors were severely incompetent. But, when I realized the huge difference between the EOP site and the revised location (the cowlick site), I thought, “Wait a minute. Not even Humes, Boswell, and Finck could have made such a gigantic blunder.”

As I began to get a better handle on the medical evidence and on the trajectories involved in the shooting, I realized that the EOP site could not have been hit by a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window, and that this was why the wound was moved. (As mentioned earlier, the WC’s experts had to assume JFK’s head was tilted over 50 degrees forward to get the EOP site to line up with the sixth-floor window.)

What makes the gigantic-blunder argument even more wildly implausible is the fact that the autopsy doctors reaffirmed the EOP site when they examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives in January 1967. In their report on the examination, they stated that the autopsy photos showed the rear head entry wound where they placed it in the autopsy report:

The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). In non-technical language, this indicates that a small wound was found in the back of the head on the right side. Photographs Nos 15, 16, 42, and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate. . . .

The photographs and x-rays corroborate our visual observations during the autopsy and conclusively support our medical opinion as set forth in the summary of our autopsy report. (Report on Examination of JFK Autopsy Materials, 1/26/67, pp. 3, 5)

Furthermore, autopsy witnesses Roy Kellerman and Francis O’Neill put the rear head entry wound near the EOP/hairline in the wound diagrams they drew for federal investigators. And, chief autopsy photographer John Stringer also said the wound was near the EOP/hairline, and he specifically rejected the cowlick entry site when asked to examine the autopsy photos.

Getting back to the 7x2 mm fragment seen above the right orbit in the autopsy skull x-rays, if you view the fragment on the lateral skull x-ray, you see that it is nowhere near the high fragment trail and does not come close to aligning with the trail’s trajectory. It is a good 1 inch (2.5 cm) below the high fragment trail and 1.25 inches (3.1 cm) to the right of it. 

Finally, I see that Lance Payette is citing college dropout Pat Speer's blundering attacks on Dr. Mantik's optical-density research. If you want to see how erroneous and amateurish Speer's attacks are in this area, I recommend reading Dr. Mantik's reply to them:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf

BTW, Speer strongly argues that the EOP site is correct. I thought I should mention this, since Payette ignored it. Speer has an entrenched ideological bias against the idea that any of the medical evidence was planted or altered, and this has led him to make truly embarrassing arguments against Mantik's optical-density research (and also against Dr. Michael Chesser's optical-density research). However, when it comes to the rear head entry wound, he argues that the cowlick site is bogus, that the cowlick site was put forward to avoid the impossible trajectory required for the EOP site, and that the EOP site can actually be seen on one of the autopsy photos.

Payette is citing an old, early statement by Dr. Mantik on 9/11, a statement he made before he had done any research on the subject. Dr. Mantik soon came to firmly reject 9/11 Truther claims, as he has made clear. I have personally talked with Dr. Mantik about this issue at length. He is totally convinced that 9/11 Truth claims are false. In an ongoing email discussion, he has posted evidence against 9/11 Truther claims.

Notice that the WC believers who are posting in this thread are making no attempt to explain the evidence I'm presenting. They're doing everything but that.