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.