JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories

[Michael T. Griffith]

You can tell from their replies that lone-gunman theorists here still do not understand why the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP autopsy skull x-ray. The object was added not only to implicate Oswald but (1) to discredit the rear head entry wound described by the autopsy doctors and (2) to provide a superficial basis for future cooperative experts to place the rear head entry wound a whopping 10 cm/4 inches higher on the back of the head, which is exactly what the Clark Panel and the HSCA later did.

Clearly, at least some of the people running the cover-up recognized very quickly that the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report was very problematic for the lone-gunman tale. The autopsy doctors wrote in the autopsy report that the wound was “slightly above” and 2.5 cm/1 inch to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). The EOP is the bump in the middle of the lower part of the back of the head.

Since a bullet fired from the alleged sniper’s window would have struck JFK’s head at a markedly downward angle (at least 15 degrees), JFK would have had to be leaning far forward to enable that bullet to exit at a location that was above the entry point and that was in the right parietal region.

Equally important, if not more important, the autopsy doctors said they identified the rear entry wound based on skull fragments that were brought to the autopsy late that night, and that part of the entry wound was contained in one of those fragments. This, of course, meant that some occipital bone had been blasted out of the skull, but the back-of-the-head autopsy photo shows no such damage. Also, an occipital bone fragment with part of any entry wound in it could lead to the logical inference that a bullet struck the occiput and then a second bullet struck the front of the head and blew out part of the occiput.

So for these two reasons—the trajectory issue and the occipital-bone-fragment issue—the autopsy/EOP rear head entry wound had to be ditched and discredited.

By sometime on Sunday, 11/24/63, some of the conspirators had seen the Zapruder film. Thanks partly to the ARRB, we now know that the Zapruder film was diverted to the CIA’s NPIC photo center and then to the CIA-contracted Kodak lab in Rochester, New York, on 11/23 and 11/24. We know that two different sets of briefing boards were made at NPIC by two separate photo analyst teams. The briefing boards were different because the second set was based on the altered Zapruder film that came back to NPIC from the Rochester lab. You can read all about this in Doug Horne’s article, which is based on ARRB research and follow-up research:

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

Anyone who has seen the Zapruder film knows that it does not show Kennedy leaning far enough forward when the head shot strikes to line up with a trajectory from the sixth-floor window to the EOP and through the right parietal area.

Thus, the rear head entry wound had to be moved, and moved substantially, even if it meant making the autopsy doctors look like bumbling idiots. After all, how could anyone “mistake” a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was a whopping 10 cm/4 inches lower, especially when they had two prominent features to use as reference points (the hairline and the EOP)?

In 1968, the Clark Panel announced that the rear entry wound was nowhere near the EOP but was in the cowlick, 10 cm/4 inches higher than the site described in the autopsy report, and 1 cm/0.39 inches above the 6.5 mm object. The HSCA forensic pathology panel (FPP) concurred with the Clark Panel’s claim, although we now know that some of the FPP’s consultants had doubts about the higher location.

The cowlick entry wound site fits far better, though not perfectly, with the trajectory from the sixth-floor window, and it is much closer to the fragment trail that is visible on the lateral skull x-rays.

Yet, the autopsy doctors vehemently challenged the FPP on the cowlick location. To a man, each autopsy doctor ardently rejected the higher location and insisted that they had seen and handled the rear entry site and were positive that it was only a fraction of an inch above the EOP. They each indicated that it was insulting and unreasonable to suggest that they had mislocated the wound by 4 inches.

Indeed, we now know that in one incredible exchange with the HSCA, when Dr. Finck was shown the back-of-the-head photo (F3), which shows a small circular image in the cowlick that some people could interpret as a wound, Dr. Finck questioned how the photo had been authenticated as having been taken at the autopsy! Not surprisingly, the HSCA suppressed this exchange—we only learned about it in the 1990s, when the ARRB released most of the sealed HSCA files.

When the HSCA FPP interviewed Dr. Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, they asked him about the rear head entry wound. He replied by pointing out that a fragment of occipital bone was received at Bethesda very late that night. He also said that the back-of-the-head photo did not show the wounds in the head that he recalled seeing.

When the autopsy doctors were interviewed by the ARRB, they once again insisted that the autopsy report’s description of the rear head entry wound was accurate. In fact, Dr. Finck even told the ARRB that there was a fragment trail that went from a point near the EOP upward to the area of the right orbit. No such fragment trail appears on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. The only fragment trail is not only above the autopsy/EOP entry site but is above the Clark Panel/FPP/cowlick entry site.

When the FPP cited the 6.5 mm object as evidence that the bullet had struck in the cowlick, the autopsy doctors responded by saying they had seen no such fragment in the autopsy x-rays during the autopsy and that they had examined the x-rays very carefully because they were looking for fragments to retrieve from the skull.

In point of fact, the cowlick entry site is not at all clearly evident on the skull x-rays, and we now know that two of the FPP’s expert consultants had doubts about the cowlick site in the skull x-rays. In fact, Dr. Seaman said the x-rays provided no conclusive evidence of an entry site in the cowlick.

Significantly, the three radiologists who were consulted by the ARRB said they saw no indication of an entry wound in the cowlick area on the skull x-rays.

Furthermore, several private, non-government-contracted doctors—including Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. David Mantik, and Dr. Michael Chesser—who have examined the autopsy x-rays and photos reject the cowlick entry point and support the EOP entry site. Dr. Aguilar notes that Dr. Boswell triangulated the rear head entry wound to the EOP in a diagram he made during the autopsy. Dr. Chesser believes the entry wound was moved to get it closer to the fragment trail seen on the x-rays, which, as mentioned, is nowhere near the EOP but far above it. Of course, as Dr. Chesser notes, this fragment trail was likely caused by the frontal shot that entered the right temple, and not by a shot that entered near the EOP or in the cowlick.

The forger of the 6.5 mm object had to be careful to make sure that the object was spatially consistent with the genuine small fragment seen on the lateral skull x-rays. He did so by placing the object over the genuine fragment, which automatically ensured the object and the fragment would be spatially consistent. Dr. Mantik:

The entrepreneur who did this had to be clever, however. If he had simply placed a counterfeit image onto the AP view willy-nilly, most likely it would not have been spatially consistent on the two views. But, by using something that was already there, Mother Nature solved the problem for him. He did not bother to alter the lateral--there was no need to. All he had to do was add the fake image right over the pre-existing shrapnel that the FBI had reported. Mother Nature had already located this image on both films consistent with reality, so he had no decisions to make. (Assassination Science, p. 135, available online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf)

[Joe Elliott]

You can tell from their replies that lone-gunman theorists here still do not understand why the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP autopsy skull x-ray. The object was added not only to implicate Oswald but (1) to discredit the rear head entry wound described by the autopsy doctors and (2) to provide a superficial basis for future cooperative experts to place the rear head entry wound a whopping 10 cm/4 inches higher on the back of the head, which is exactly what the Clark Panel and the HSCA later did.

Again, we don’t know if this was a 6.5 mm object. You cannot accurately estimate the size of an object in an X-Ray.

How does an X-Ray work? On one side of the head, you have an X-Ray source, that emits X-Rays from a point source. On the other side of the head is an X-Ray plate. Objects made of bone, metal and other material will cast a shadow on the X-Ray plate. If the object is closer to the X-Ray source, and further from the X-Ray plate, it will cast a bigger shadow. If the same object is closer to the X-Ray place, and further from the X-Ray source, it will cast a smaller shadow.

So, if two pennies are taped to opposite sides of the head and the head is X-Rayed, the pennies will not appear to be the same size. The penny closer to the X-Ray source will appear bigger.

So, without knowing where in the head the object is, one cannot accurately know its size. One cannot tell if it was near the alleged entry wound or on the opposite side of the head. It would only be possible to say the object was near the alleged entry wound if it appeared in at least two X-Rays, showing the head from different directions. That is the only way it could be accurately placed in 3-D space.


On a separate point, if the conspirators wanted to establish a false entry location, they would need to modify at least two X-Rays, to establish its location in 3-D space. Indeed, to make it look real, they would need to modify all the X-Rays. This ‘fragment’ should not only appear on some X-Rays but not others. It would need to appear on all of them.

Clearly, at least some of the people running the cover-up recognized very quickly that the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report was very problematic for the lone-gunman tale. The autopsy doctors wrote in the autopsy report that the wound was “slightly above” and 2.5 cm/1 inch to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). The EOP is the bump in the middle of the lower part of the back of the head.

Since a bullet fired from the alleged sniper’s window would have struck JFK’s head at a markedly downward angle (at least 15 degrees), JFK would have had to be leaning far forward to enable that bullet to exit at a location that was above the entry point and that was in the right parietal region.

No. You have not read the works of a real ballistic expert, like Larry Sturdivan.

Bullet fragments do not travel in straight lines. They follow curved lines within a head. So, either the EOP or cowlick entry works. You don’t need to fake an entry wound to establish a straight line from the sniper’s nest, through the entry wound, through the exit wound. And if this was done, what good would it do? Because the windshield frame and windshield are well above this line.

Larry Sturdivan felt that the EOP entry location was more probable, partly because that location would not require the fragments path to curve too much, to pass through the entry wound, pass through the exit wound, and hit or pass close to the windshield frame.

Equally important, if not more important, the autopsy doctors said they identified the rear entry wound based on skull fragments that were brought to the autopsy late that night, and that part of the entry wound was contained in one of those fragments. This, of course, meant that some occipital bone had been blasted out of the skull, but the back-of-the-head autopsy photo shows no such damage. Also, an occipital bone fragment with part of any entry wound in it could lead to the logical inference that a bullet struck the occiput and then a second bullet struck the front of the head and blew out part of the occiput.

My understanding is that the rear entry wound was in the back of the skull and not part of any skull fragments. It was the exit wound, on the right side of the head near the front that was found in one of the skull fragments, fragmented by the explosive wound. It was these skull fragments that established the location of the exit wound.

So, for these two reasons—the trajectory issue and the occipital-bone-fragment issue—the autopsy/EOP rear head entry wound had to be ditched and discredited.

No, not with the curved paths of bullet fragments, which are always curved when viewed in ballistic gel.

Anyone who has seen the Zapruder film knows that it does not show Kennedy leaning far enough forward when the head shot strikes to line up with a trajectory from the sixth-floor window to the EOP and through the right parietal area.

Thus, the rear head entry wound had to be moved, and moved substantially, even if it meant making the autopsy doctors look like bumbling idiots. After all, how could anyone “mistake” a wound in the cowlick for a wound that was a whopping 10 cm/4 inches lower, especially when they had two prominent features to use as reference points (the hairline and the EOP)?

Again, you fail to understand that bullet fragment through head and ballistic gel do not follow straight line paths.

Yet, the autopsy doctors vehemently challenged the FPP on the cowlick location. To a man, each autopsy doctor ardently rejected the higher location and insisted that they had seen and handled the rear entry site and were positive that it was only a fraction of an inch above the EOP. They each indicated that it was insulting and unreasonable to suggest that they had mislocated the wound by 4 inches.

Larry Sturdivan believes the autopsy doctors were correct to challenge the cowlick location. The EOP location is probably correct. It actually requires the fragments to curve a lot less if the EOP location is the true location and not the cowlick location.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Again, we don’t know if this was a 6.5 mm object. You cannot accurately estimate the size of an object in an X-Ray.

You still have not read any of the research on the 6.5 mm object, have you?  Yes, we know the size of the object. Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays.

How does an X-Ray work? On one side of the head, you have an X-Ray source, that emits X-Rays from a point source. On the other side of the head is an X-Ray plate. Objects made of bone, metal and other material will cast a shadow on the X-Ray plate. If the object is closer to the X-Ray source, and further from the X-Ray plate, it will cast a bigger shadow. If the same object is closer to the X-Ray place, and further from the X-Ray source, it will cast a smaller shadow.

So, if two pennies are taped to opposite sides of the head and the head is X-Rayed, the pennies will not appear to be the same size. The penny closer to the X-Ray source will appear bigger.

Yes, yes, whatever. You still do not seem to understand optical density measurements and what they can rule out. You really need to break down and read the research of Mantik, Chesser, and Horne on this issue. By the way, Dr. Mantik's section on the 6.5 mm object in Assassination Science was proof-read by Dr. Arthur G. Haus, who was the director of Kodak's Department of Medical Physics.

So, without knowing where in the head the object is, one cannot accurately know its size. One cannot tell if it was near the alleged entry wound or on the opposite side of the head. It would only be possible to say the object was near the alleged entry wound if it appeared in at least two X-Rays, showing the head from different directions. That is the only way it could be accurately placed in 3-D space.

Again, you are casting about blindly and coming up empty because you have not read the relevant research. The 6.5 mm object is a ghosted image--so it has no "location" as such, because it was never on/in the skull, but it has been ghosted over the small genuine fragment in the back of the head. That is why it is only visible on the AP view, and that is one way that we know it is a phantom image. Break down and read the research.

On a separate point, if the conspirators wanted to establish a false entry location, they would need to modify at least two X-Rays, to establish its location in 3-D space. Indeed, to make it look real, they would need to modify all the X-Rays. This ‘fragment’ should not only appear on some X-Rays but not others. It would need to appear on all of them.

You can dream up picture-perfect cover-up scenarios all day, but your speculation does not explain the hard scientific evidence. Duplicating the object on the lateral x-rays would have been difficult and would have taken more time. There were two lateral views, so the forger would have had to duplicate the object exactly on both, and would have had to make sure that it was dimensionally consistent with the object on the AP view if it were ever analyzed for consistency. For these reasons, the forger might have felt it best and wisest to just put the object on the AP x-ray, and the conspirators probably felt confident that no one would examine the x-rays anytime soon would be looking at them with a critical eye.

As Doug Horne notes, the conspirators were rushed and were having to deal with multiple issues quickly and on-the-fly. They only had so much time and only so much control over witting and unwitting ground-level people. They were not expecting the body to even go to Bethesda. They planned on sending the body to Walter Reed, where they had a team waiting to do the "autopsy," but Jackie unexpectedly insisted that the autopsy be done at Bethesda since JFK had served in the Navy. Horne documents this in some detail in Inside the ARRB. Here's a radio interview where Horne discusses this issue based on new evidence from recently discovered Air Force One tapes and other evidence--it is three hours long because so much material has become available on the subject:

[/size]

No. You have not read the works of a real ballistic expert, like Larry Sturdivan.

Oh, I dare say that I've read a whole bunch more books and articles on ballistics than you have.

Bullet fragments do not travel in straight lines.  They follow curved lines within a head.

No, bullet fragments do not always travel in straight lines, but they don't make magical sharp turns either, unless they strike something hard enough to cause a sharp turn.

So, either the EOP or cowlick entry works.

That is nonsense. You go get Z311 and draw a diagram over it that shows a trajectory from the sixth-floor window to the EOP wound upward to the right parietal region. Let's see it.

You might also go look at the WC and HSCA diagrams and see the marked difference in how far they have Kennedy leaning forward.

You don’t need to fake an entry wound to establish a straight line from the sniper’s nest, through the entry wound, through the exit wound.

Nonsense. You simply ignored the reasons I gave for the revision of the wound's location. They had to deal with the trajectory issue and with the issue of blasted-out occipital bone.

And if this was done, what good would it do? Because the windshield frame and windshield are well above this line.

You must be kidding. Again, the EOP entry site meant missing occipital bone that was not brought to Bethesda until late in the autopsy, and that fragment only contained part of the entry wound. Missing occipital bone implied a second bullet that blasted out part of the occiput after the first bullet made the entry hole that was contained in the late-arriving occipital fragment. The high fragment trail does not remotely line up with a bullet that entered just above the EOP, but at the fake cowlick site at least gets close to it.

"IF" this was done? "IF"?  You are simply in denial.  The 6.5 mm object was ghosted onto the AP skull x-ray over the small genuine fragment in the back of the head. A pseudo hole was placed on the F3 autopsy photo, and when the HSCA showed it to Finck, he asked how the photo had been authenticated as having been taken at the autopsy and insisted there was no wound in cowlick at the autopsy.

Larry Sturdivan felt that the EOP entry location was more probable, partly because that location would not require the fragments path to curve too much, to pass through the entry wound, pass through the exit wound, and hit or pass close to the windshield frame.

Then Larry could not read an x-ray (actually, to be fair, he apparently only saw the FPP's doctored "enhanced" version of the skull x-rays). The only fragment trail now seen on the x-rays is very high in the skull and is even above the cowlick entry point. A whole bunch of radiologists and other experts, on both sides, have confirmed this.

Sturdivan told the HSCA that if an exploding or frangible bullet had struck the skull, it "definitely" would have left a cloud of metal fragments close to the point of entrance:

Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. Sturdivan, taking a look at JFK exhibit F-53, which is an X-ray of President Kennedy's skull, can you give us your opinion as to whether the President may have been hit with an exploding bullet?

Mr. STURDIVAN. . . . In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. (1 HSCA 401)

Well, apparently Sturdivan was unaware of the fact that on the unenhanced autopsy x-rays, a cloud of fragments is visible in the right frontal region, which would indicate that a frangible bullet struck in that area. Apparently  Sturdivan only examined the enhanced x-rays and not the original x-rays. Historian Dr. Michael Kurtz comments on this:

Sturvidan also stated that Kennedy was not struck in the front of the head by an exploding bullet fired from the grassy knoll. The reason, Sturdivan declared, was that the computer-enhanced x-rays of Kennedy's skull do not depict "a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound." In cases where exploding bullets impact, he asserted that "you would definitely have seen" such a cloud of fragments in the x-ray. Sturdivan's remarks betrayed both his own ignorance of the medical evidence and the committee's careful manipulation of that evidence. Sturdivan saw only the computer-enhanced x-ray of the skull, not the original, unretouched x-rays. Had he seen the originals, he would have observed a cloud of metallic fragments clustered in the right front portion of the head.

Furthermore, the close-up photograph of the margins of the large wound in the head shows numerous small fragments. The Forensic Pathology Panel itself noted the presence of "missile dust" near the wound in the front of the head. One of the expert radiologists who examined the x-rays noticed "a linear alignment of tiny metallic fragments" located in the "posterior aspect of the right frontal bone." The chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, remarked about the numerous metallic fragments like grains of sand scattered near the front head wound. The medical evidence, then, definitely proves the existence of a cloud of fragments in the right front portion of Kennedy's head, convincing evidence, according to Sturdivan, that an exploding bullet actually did strike the president there. (Crime of the Century, pp. 177-178)

My understanding is that the rear entry wound was in the back of the skull and not part of any skull fragments.

Then your understanding is based on incomplete research. Boswell and Finck were especially clear on this point.

It was the exit wound, on the right side of the head near the front that was found in one of the skull fragments, fragmented by the explosive wound. It was these skull fragments that established the location of the exit wound.

There was no exit wound in the right parietal region. Humes created that "wound" before the autopsy began--Tom Robinson, the mortician, watched him do it, and told the ARRB about it. We have all of the Parkland Hospital treatment reports on Kennedy, dated 11/22/63, and none of them mentions any damage to the right parietal area--they all put the large wound in the back of the head, and several mention that cerebellar tissue was extruding and missing. The nurse who washed JFK's body saw no wound in right parietal region--she saw a sizable wound in the back of the skull, the same wound that Clint Hill saw for several minutes close up en route to Parkland, and the same wound that he saw again at the morgue. Perhaps you could explain the impossible white patch on the two lateral skull x-rays that covers the right-rear part of the skull.

By the way, if you actually read the autopsy report, you find that Humes said that the large head wound extended into the occiput:

There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. (p. 3)

How about you show me on autopsy photo F3 where there is any part of the large wound that even touches the occiput (which is the "occipital region"), much less extends into it. Let's see it. It ain't there.

No, not with the curved paths of bullet fragments, which are always curved when viewed in ballistic gel.

Again, you fail to understand that bullet fragment through head and ballistic gel do not follow straight line paths.

More dressed-up ducking and dodging. No one denies that bullets and fragments usually curve to some extent or another, but they do not make sharp turns after they have begun to travel unless they strike something.

Even the revised, fake higher entry point does not explain the windshield glass and chrome damage--because, as Canning admitted, the trajectory from the exit wound does not line up vertically with that damage. But the conspirators probably were not thinking about having to account for that damage but were focused on the immediate issues of the trajectory and the missing occipital bone. They might not have even been aware of the windshield damage at that point, although they did have the limo cleaned before a proper forensic examination could be done on it, and they did have the windshield destroyed and replaced.

Larry Sturdivan believes the autopsy doctors were correct to challenge the cowlick location. The EOP location is probably correct. It actually requires the fragments to curve a lot less if the EOP location is the true location and not the cowlick location.

What?!  Do you just not understand that the only fragment trail that is now visible on the skull x-rays is the one that is above the proposed cowlick entry point? What have you read about the medical evidence? How can anyone who wants to be taken seriously about the medical evidence not know this?

Really, please, break down and do some homework and read the relevant research on these issues, starting with Dr. Mantik's research on the clear scientific evidence of tampering in the skull x-rays.

[Jerry Organ]

Please don't enlarge the type size for all of your reply.

The "Font Size" (and Bold and Italic) are attributes made available for highlighting a brief section.
If you have trouble reading the default font size of replies here, you can change the font size in your browser settings.

[John Mytton]

Please don't enlarge the type size for all of your reply.

The "Font Size" (and Bold and Italic) are attributes made available for highlighting a brief section.
If you have trouble reading the default font size of replies here, you can change the font size in your browser settings.

Good advice, Jerry!

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Please don't enlarge the type size for all of your reply.

The "Font Size" (and Bold and Italic) are attributes made available for highlighting a brief section.
If you have trouble reading the default font size of replies here, you can change the font size in your browser settings.

Well, gee, thank you for the input, but if you find my choice of font size intolerable, just don't read my posts. How about that? Font size 12 is a standard font size. If you don't like it, don't read my posts.

I can read the default font just fine. I just happen to think that 12 looks better. So, again, if you really have heartburn with it, don't read my posts. If it's any consolation, I rarely read yours.

Good advice, Jerry! JohnM

Now that's rather juvenile. Your "Good advice, Jerry!" is in font size 36, which is hardly a standard font size. 12 is a standard font size.

[John Mytton]

Now that's rather juvenile. Your "Good advice, Jerry!" is in font size 36, which is hardly a standard font size. 12 is a standard font size.

Welcome to the 21st century Grandpa, this isn't about a suitable font to be printed on paper but this is a web page where posts are adjusted and formatted to be viewed on a phone, a tablet, a cathode ray monitor, a laptop, a wide screen monitor, an ultra wide monitor through to a huge TV screen and the size of font that you are using makes scrolling through your insufferable posts just that much more irritating.

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Welcome to the 21st century Grandpa, this isn't about a suitable font to be printed on paper but this is a web page where posts are adjusted and formatted to be viewed on a phone, a tablet, a cathode ray monitor, a laptop, a wide screen monitor, an ultra wide monitor through to a huge TV screen and the size of font that you are using makes scrolling through your insufferable posts just that much more irritating. JohnM

Well, then, gee, that's all the more reason for you to not read my posts. I don't complain that you frequently load your posts with huge bogus GIFs and diagrams, which require a lot of scrolling. Stop whining.