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


Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments  (Read 5055 times)

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
  • Halifax - Canada
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2023, 05:40:42 PM »
Here's how one researcher tried to explain the roundness of the 7x2 mm fragment.



JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2023, 05:40:42 PM »


Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1584
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2023, 06:03:54 PM »





It's not an artifact, and it's not on the back of the skull. It's the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed from behind the right eye.

That lateral X-ray helps a lot. Thank you.

Question:

Do we have regular photographs of the fragment that Humes removed?

Preferably from different angles?

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1584
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2023, 06:09:29 PM »

Here's how one researcher tried to explain the roundness of the 7x2 mm fragment.



I take it that we just have the one view of the actual fragment?

I think this play-do model looks about right. The "round" object wasn't really all that round.

Sturdivan was mistaken about this just being an artifact. But I don't think it was a disk like object as is generally interpreted. It was just an irregularly shaped fragment. So it appears to be much ado about nothing.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2023, 06:09:29 PM »



Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1584

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1584
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2023, 04:06:06 PM »
Here's how one researcher tried to explain the roundness of the 7x2 mm fragment.



Just to ask again, are these the only images we have of the 7x2 mm fragment, this gray object below the orange play-doh model in both the left and right photos?

Unless I see this fragment from other angles that proves otherwise, I think this fragment is the object visible in the two X-rays of JFK, from the front and the side.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2023, 04:06:50 PM by Joe Elliott »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2023, 04:06:06 PM »


Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1584
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2023, 04:25:01 PM »

I was referring to Sturdivan's email to Stuart Wexler that is referred to in the OP in which he acknowledges that the fragment is seen on both xray views. He says it "seems to have great[er] optical density thin-face than it does edgewise":

  • "Iím not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing Iím 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. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. Iíve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face on [the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-ray]Ö.The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact (e-mail from Larry Sturdivan to Stuart Wexler on 9 March 1998).  " [as quoted in Mantik's 2015 article "The John F. Kennedy Autopsy x-Rays: The Sage of the Largest "Metallic Fragment"
Maybe not when he wrote his book.  He is not an expert in interpreting x-rays and he does not appear to have consulted anyone who is.

While it is not impossible that the bright object in the frontal X-ray could be an artifact, one should not adopt such an explanation if it can be explained otherwise. I see no reason why this bright object could not be the 7x2 mm fragment that was recovered from the autopsy. Always adopt the simpler theory over a more contrived one, unless the evidence is strong. And the evidence that this must be an artifact is not strong at all.

The logical conclusion? The bright object was the 7x2 mm fragment. Recovered form near the front of the skull. Just as the autopsy doctors maintained. No evidence of a "cowlick" entry point for the bullet.

I agree with you. Sturdivan was not an expert of x-rays. No one is going to be an expert on all the technical fields related to this case. And, I suppose there is only a finite amount of time one can devote to writing a book so getting the time to consult with all these experts can be a problem. And no one is ever going to write an error free book.

Still, on ballistic questions, the velocities bullets will be deformed by flesh, or by bone, one what sort of damage a bullet may receive when it creates certain wounds, Sturdivan was an expert with a good deal of experience observing real ballistic experiments.

Another point on this subject, Sturdivan was right to say this fragment could not be a bullet fragment left right in the position the bullet entered the skull. His experience with ballistic shows that this scenario would not happen, at least not with a WCC/MC bullet at pretty close to muzzle velocity.

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
    • SPMLaw
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2023, 08:42:22 PM »
While it is not impossible that the bright object in the frontal X-ray could be an artifact, one should not adopt such an explanation if it can be explained otherwise.
It is not an artifact if it is seen on both views.

Quote
I see no reason why this bright object could not be the 7x2 mm fragment that was recovered from the autopsy. Always adopt the simpler theory over a more contrived one, unless the evidence is strong. And the evidence that this must be an artifact is not strong at all.

The logical conclusion? The bright object was the 7x2 mm fragment. Recovered form near the front of the skull. Just as the autopsy doctors maintained. No evidence of a "cowlick" entry point for the bullet.
The objection seems to be its roundness over about 3/4 of the fragment.  That is what naturally happens when a molten drop of lead impacts a larger object or surface.

Quote
I agree with you. Sturdivan was not an expert of x-rays. No one is going to be an expert on all the technical fields related to this case. And, I suppose there is only a finite amount of time one can devote to writing a book so getting the time to consult with all these experts can be a problem. And no one is ever going to write an error free book.

Still, on ballistic questions, the velocities bullets will be deformed by flesh, or by bone, one what sort of damage a bullet may receive when it creates certain wounds, Sturdivan was an expert with a good deal of experience observing real ballistic experiments.

Another point on this subject, Sturdivan was right to say this fragment could not be a bullet fragment left right in the position the bullet entered the skull. His experience with ballistic shows that this scenario would not happen, at least not with a WCC/MC bullet at pretty close to muzzle velocity.
It is not hard to find someone who knows how to read medical x-rays. I am always amazed at how dentists see things in dental x-rays.

Sturdivan understands strength of materials and yield pressures of bullets and targets.  But his explanation of CE399 being consistent with the SBT is quite controversial. 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2023, 08:42:22 PM »


 

Mobile View