LOL! You're still peddling this hilarious nonsense?! Let me just briefly repeat the facts I documented for you the last time you floated this hokum: Every medical panel that has looked at the skull x-rays has identified the 6.5 mm object as a separate image from the 7 x 2 mm fragment near the right orbit -- the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission medical panel, the HSCA FPP, the HSCA FPP's radiology consultants, and the ARRB's medical panel. Both objects are clearly visible on the AP skull x-rays, and anyone with functioning eyes can see they have different shapes and are located in different vertical positions in relation to the right orbit:

AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment

As you can see, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is at least 1 inch higher in the skull than the 6.5 mm object and has an obviously different shape.

Any objective people who read this exchange are going to wonder how in the world you can claim with a straight face that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same objects.

Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue". Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficulty, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment.  Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.

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 of the 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.
=========

And there's this from Joseph N Riley, Ph.D.:

"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.  - "Respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York."

https://archive.org/details/nsia-RileyJosephN/nsia-RileyJosephN/Riley%20Joseph%20N%2005/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater

===========

THERE IS A METALLIC FRAGMENT ABOVE THE SINUS APPEARING TO BE  BETWEEN THE BONY TABLES OF THE FRONTAL BONE
-  Dr. G. M. McDonnel, in his report to the HSCA concerning Observation, analysis, and conclusions in connection with radiographic images and enhanced images attributed to President John F. Kennedy.
============

Post the enhanced AP X-Ray with an arrow pointing at the fragment that my red arrow is pointing at in the lateral view below.

      You've done extremely good work concerning the Prayer Man and the activity around the TSBD immediately after the Kill Shot. And your theory of Shelley and Lovelady entering the TSBD via the front door is unique. All of this is to your credit. I made the mistake of thinking that your knowledge of the JFK Assassination was also this broad based. At this point, it's not even close to that level. You need to familiarize yourself with the 11/22/63 layout of the Knoll. Also, who was where, who went where, and what JFK Assassination Films and Photos document this. Start with the Couch Film. The Couch Film shows what is believed to be Wiegman running Down the (W) side of the Knoll. The Bell Film shows Wiegman on the upper (E) side of the Knoll. How much time do you think is between the Bell Film images of Wiegman on the (E) side of the Knoll vs the Couch Film showing Wiegman running down the (W) side of the Knoll? And remember that we see Officer Hargis standing alongside the Light Pole on the Bell Film. TICK/TOCK
      Get to know the JFK Assassination Images, (both film and photo), and think it through. If you do this, you will Not have to rely on smokescreens like, "Zapruder, Sitzman, and Wiegman are ALL behind the sign". That is extremely weak in many ways. Especially if you Know the distance between Wiegman and Sitzman. If you substituted a Bill Board for the Thornton Sign, that bill board would Not stretch from Wiegman to Sitzman. That bill board would Not be wide enough to obscure both Sitzman and Wiegman. Again familiarize yourself with who was where, along with the 11/22/63 position of the Knoll landmarks. Especially: (1) the Light Post, (2) the Stemmons Sign, and, (3) the Thornton Sign.

You make sh!t up and believe it's a fact.
You are an incredibly tiring person to deal with.
Why not post an actual fact you can back up. It's all your fantastical opinion. Your constant insistence that Weigman can be seen running across the knoll in the Bell footage DQ's you from this discussion.

​

Just so you know,  a bullet fragment was not deposited on the outer table of the skull at or near the entry point. Sturdivan had trouble understanding what that "6.5 mm" object was doing in the back of the head, and for good reason.  It was not in the back of the head. It was the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and just above the right eye.

LOL! You're still peddling this hilarious nonsense?! ​I had mistakenly assumed you had abandoned this fiction after our last exchange on the subject, but I see I assumed too much.

​So, let me just briefly repeat the facts ​that I documented for you the last time ​I dealt with this hokum: Every medical panel that has looked at the skull x-rays has identified the 6.5 mm object as a separate image from the 7 x 2 mm fragment above the right orbit: the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission medical panel, the HSCA FPP, the HSCA FPP's radiology consultants, and the ARRB's medical panel. Both objects are clearly visible on the AP skull x-rays, and anyone with functioning eyes can see they have different shapes and are located in different vertical positions in relation to the right orbit:

AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment (JPG, regular size)

AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment (PDF, enlarged)

As you can see, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is at least 1 inch higher in the skull than the 6.5 mm object, is about 1/4 inch to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and has an obviously different shape than the 6.5 mm object.​

Any objective people who read this exchange are going to wonder how in the world you can claim with a straight face that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same objects.

You actually do suffer from a reading-comprehension problem, don't you? Let me just repeat what I said about the ABC7 documentary:

In December 2021, ABC7 News in San Francisco aired an outstanding documentary on the JFK assassination titled JFK Unsolved: The Real Conspiracies that includes valuable segments on the acoustical evidence. The documentary was written and produced by Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist Dan Noyes, who works for ABC7 News.

The San Francisco ABC7 News documentary is a good example of the fact that local ABC, NBC, and CBS news stations often produce quality JFKA documentaries or news segments, even though their parent national/corporate-level channels usually do not. You can find many informative locally produced ABC/NBC/CBS JFKA reports on YouTube. You can also find such reports by non-legacy news outlets on YouTube.

Your replies are just a never-ending, and embarrassing, comedy show. Objective people will read your replies and realize they show you are poorly educated, have a juvenile mentality, and lack integrity.

I firmly believe that you suffer with mental illness, MTG.
 
You're an egomaniacal narcissist.

You actually do suffer from a reading-comprehension problem, don't you? Let me just repeat what I said about the ABC7 documentary:

In December 2021, ABC7 News in San Francisco aired an outstanding documentary on the JFK assassination titled JFK Unsolved: The Real Conspiracies that includes valuable segments on the acoustical evidence. The documentary was written and produced by Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist Dan Noyes, who works for ABC7 News.

The San Francisco ABC7 News documentary is a good example of the fact that local ABC, NBC, and CBS news stations often produce quality JFKA documentaries or news segments, even though their parent national/corporate-level channels usually do not. You can find many informative locally produced ABC/NBC/CBS JFKA reports on YouTube. You can also find such reports by non-legacy news outlets on YouTube.

Your replies are just a never-ending, and embarrassing, comedy show. Objective people will read your replies and realize they show you are poorly educated, have a juvenile mentality, and lack integrity.

How would you know what objective people think?