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

[Michael T. Griffith]

By the way, years ago we learned from ARRB-released files that Dr. John Ebersole, he radiologist at the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that a sizable occipital bone fragment arrived late that night from Dallas. Understandably, Dr. Ebersole said the photos of the back of the head did not show the large defect that he recalled seeing. When shown one of the back-of-the-head photographs, Dr. Ebersole told HSCA investigators that his recollection was that the large defect was in the occipital region, and that he "certainly" could not state that the image seen in the photo was "the way it looked."

Corroboration for Dr. Ebersole's HSCA statement comes from none other than Dr. Boswell, one of the autopsy doctors. In files released by the ARRB, we learn that Dr. Boswell made it clear to the HSCA that part of the rear entry wound, which he and the other pathologists said was located in the occiput, was contained in a piece of missing bone that didn't arrive until late that night. Thus, according to Dr. Boswell's detailed description to HSCA investigators, that late-arriving bone fragment would have had to be mostly or entirely from the occipital area. The Harper fragment contains part a bullet hole as well.

Not only does this strengthen the case that there was a large defect in part of the occiput, but it discredits autopsy photos F3 and F5, i.e., the photos that show the back of the head intact. Recall that even the autopsy report said that the large head wound extended into the occiput (p. 3); however, in F3 and F5, the large wound does not even come close to the occiput.

This helps to explain why Saundra Kay Spencer, who processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy, told the ARRB that she did not process any of the autopsy photos now in evidence, i.e., that the autopsy photos that she processed were different from the autopsy pictures now in evidence. She also told the ARRB she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives.

Joe O'Donnell, who worked with White House photographer Robert Knudsen, told the ARRB that Knudsen showed him autopsy photos that showed a grapefruit-sized hole in the back of the head. This is yet another witness who saw a sizable wound in the rear of the skull.

This information has been known and discussed in numerous books and articles since the late 1990s, but most WC apologists seem to be unaware of it, or else they are ignoring it because they cannot explain it.

[John Mytton]

See the Harper fragment with your own eyes being blasted out and forward and NO where else in the Zapruder film do we see the ridiculous theory of a sizeable fragment and matter being blasted out the back.



The following recreation shows a similar effect.



Where the Harper fragment came from.



Ain't no exit hole back here and the impossible to fake stereoscopic autopsy photo proves it.



(1) Vascular grooves

The inner surface of the skull is marked in places by vascular grooves, i.e., small depressions where blood vessels are located in vivo. In the case of parietal bone, vascular grooves are mainly from branches of the middle meningeal. No such pattern exists for occipital bone; it has an entirely different type of interior surface which will be described below. The photograph of the interior surface of the Harper fragment (HSCA Fig. 27; see Figure 1A and compare to Figure 1C) shows a pattern of vascular grooving entirely consistent with it being parietal bone and entirely inconsistent with it being occipital bone.

In contrast to parietal bone, occipital bone does not show a pattern of vascular grooving. It does have internal markings, including deep sulci ("grooves") that are much larger than vascular grooves; these are grooves for the transverse sinus and superior sagittal sinus. No such deep grooves are visible in the photographs of the Harper fragment.

(2) Additional features

Parietal bone is characterized by a relatively smooth (excluding vascular grooves) inner surface, mild curvature, and relatively uniform thickness. In contrast, occipital bone is characterized by major variations on its internal surface (i.e., many different bumps and grooves from various things), much greater curvature, and substantial variation in thickness (compare drawings of internal aspects of parietal and occipital bone in Figure 2). Simply put, occipital bone doesn't look like the fragment in Figure 1 but parietal bone does. There are numerous other reasons why the Harper fragment is parietal bone. For example, parietal foramina (vascular perforations of a type that occur only in parietal bone) visible in the photograph establish the location and orientation of the fragment. It is worth mentioning that if the Harper fragment were lower occipital bone, death would have been virtually instantaneous. The lower portion of occipital bone forms the foramen magnum (the space through which the forebrain connects to the spinal cord); for numerous reasons, it is virtually inconceivable that John Kennedy would have shown any vital signs following explosive destruction of this area.

The information reported here establishes that the Harper fragment is parietal, not occipital bone. This fact should not be over-interpreted. The conclusion supports the authenticity of the medical evidence, but does not prove it. More importantly, the origin of the Harper fragment as parietal bone does not in any way support the conclusion that John Kennedy was struck in the head by one and only one bullet. The conclusion simply clarifies the remaining issues in evaluating the medical evidence.

The controversy over the autopsy of John Kennedy has generated many unresolved questions about the medical evidence. However, the available evidence is sufficient to determine the origin of the Harper fragment based on the anatomical features of the fragment. These anatomical features no doubt seem obscure to the general reader but they are definitive to a neuroanatomist. All of the features of the Harper fragment are consistent with it being parietal bone and inconsistent with it being occipital bone; there can be no reasonable scientific doubt that the Harper fragment is parietal bone.


https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper1.htm

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

The 6.5 mm “fragment” on the anterior-posterior (AP) autopsy skull x-ray is not hard to figure out. The 6.5 mm object was never on JFK's skull and was not placed on the AP x-ray until after the autopsy. This explains why the autopsy doctors did not mention the object in the autopsy report, why they did not mention the object in their WC testimony, and why they each told the ARRB that they did not see the object on the night of the autopsy.

Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist, studied the autopsy x-rays and discovered that the 6.5 mm "fragment" on the AP x-ray is not really a fragment but rather an image that has been ghosted over a very small, genuine metal fragment, which can be seen on the lateral and AP skull x-rays. Dr. Mantik discovered this by studying the object under high magnification and then by doing optical density measurements of the object. He was even able to duplicate a process that could have been used in the 1960s to place the object on the AP x-ray.

Since, according to the WC and the HSCA, the nose and tail of the rear-entry FMJ bullet were found in the limousine, the 6.5 mm “fragment” would have to be the cross-section from the interior of the FMJ bullet, which is an impossibility with this kind of ammo under these circumstances, as even HSCA ballistics expert Larry SPersonivan has acknowledged. Dr. Mantik discusses the importance of SPersonivan’s admission:

During the lifetime of the HSCA, Larry SPersonivan served as its ballistics consultant. In his subsequent book he emphasized that he had never, in his entire career, seen a cross-section of a bullet deposited in such an odd fashion on a skull. So, totally contrary to all prior government investigations, he concluded that the 6.5 mm object could not be a metal fragment:

“I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m 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. I’ve 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]. . . . The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact. (E-mail from Larry SPersonivan to Stuart Wexler on 9 March 1998)

This was a radical statement. After all, the HSCA in particular, had relied on the (metallic) authenticity of this fragment in the most fundamental manner: based on the supposed reality of this 6.5 mm object, the HSCA had concluded that the bullet (from the sole headshot) had deposited this 6.5 mm “metal fragment” near its entry site at the back of the skull. (“The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest ‘Metallic Fragment,’” p. 5, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf)

When was the 6.5 mm object placed on the AP x-ray? There is evidence that suggests it was put there shortly before the Clark Panel viewed the autopsy x-rays and photos in 1968.

The autopsy doctors reexamined the autopsy x-rays in January 1967, and after doing so they signed a statement that said the materials they had just examined "corroborate our visual observations during the autopsy and conclusively support our medical opinion as set forth in the summary of our autopsy report." They could not have truthfully said this if the AP skull x-ray that they viewed had contained the 6.5 mm fragment.

The key word here being “truthfully.” The 6.5 mm object might have been on the AP x-ray by the time the autopsy doctors reexamined the autopsy x-rays in 1967, and the doctors might have decided to ignore it because they realized the huge problems it created for the credibility of the autopsy report, for their own credibility as pathologists, and for the location of the rear head entry wound.

Additionally, Dr. Finck might have been aware, and might have informed Humes and Boswell, that the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used could not have deposited a 6.5 mm fragment at the entry point on the outer table of skull, especially not below the entry point, since the bullet entered the skull at a downward angle and thus would have deposited the fragment above the hole, not below it.

Many researchers believe the 6.5 mm object was placed on the AP x-ray soon after the autopsy, and there is some evidence that suggests this. If such is the case, it means the autopsy doctors ignored the object when they reexamined the autopsy x-rays in early 1967.

 

[Joe Elliott]

Another Joe Elliott “most likely” argument.

More people should remind themselves that all their current beliefs are subject to review and may be changed in the future. That we can’t know for certain what happened but only estimate what probably happened. And these estimates are always subject to change.

But what CTs say that Jackie is reaching for a “piece of bone” specifically, rather than say a piece of brain?

Whether it is a ‘piece of bone’ or a ‘piece of brain’, it is invisible in all the films and photographs, including the Zapruder film, and so is probably, most certainly, nonexistent.

[John Iacoletti]

Whether it is a ‘piece of bone’ or a ‘piece of brain’, it is invisible in all the films and photographs, including the Zapruder film, and so is probably, most certainly, nonexistent.

Why would you expect everything that exists to be visible in the Zapruder film?

[Tim Nickerson]

By the way, years ago we learned from ARRB-released files that Dr. John Ebersole, he radiologist at the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that a sizable occipital bone fragment arrived late that night from Dallas. Understandably, Dr. Ebersole said the photos of the back of the head did not show the large defect that he recalled seeing. When shown one of the back-of-the-head photographs, Dr. Ebersole told HSCA investigators that his recollection was that the large defect was in the occipital region, and that he "certainly" could not state that the image seen in the photo was "the way it looked."

"Again we are relying on a 15 year old recollection."

Ebersole testified that the X-Rays in the National Archives are the ones that he supervised the taking of just prior to the start of the autopsy on Kennedy. He positively identified them , which is why he knew that his recollection on the location of the large head wound was off. Jerrol Custer believed that the X-Rays were genuine. He was shown three X-Rays of the skull during his ARRB testimony and he confirmed that he had taken them. Those X-Rays were (1),(2),and (3) in the list below.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image01.htm

This helps to explain why Saundra Kay Spencer, who processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy, told the ARRB that she did not process any of the autopsy photos now in evidence, i.e., that the autopsy photos that she processed were different from the autopsy pictures now in evidence. She also told the ARRB she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives.

Saundra Spencer obviously never processed the autopsy photos. The description that she gave of the body would have been how it appeared post-autopsy.

[Tim Nickerson]

The 6.5 mm “fragment” on the anterior-posterior (AP) autopsy skull x-ray is not hard to figure out.

  It's the 7mm x 2mm fragment that was removed by Humes. It was acknowledged as such by Humes in his WC testimony and in his ARRB deposition. Both Jerrol Custer and Edward Reed also placed the large fragment as being located just superior to the right supra-orbital ridge.

[Joe Elliott]

Why would you expect everything that exists to be visible in the Zapruder film?

Anything of significant size, yes. The Zapruder film only shows material being blasted forward and/or up. Nothing, that is big enough to be seen, going backwards. This is an indication of a shot from the back, not from the front.

Certainly, small particles did go backwards. But small particles are the ones most effected by the wind. And the limousine was driving into a head wind of 10-15 mph. With its own 8 mph speed, the wind relative to the limousine was 18-23 mph. So, we don’t even know if any small particles were initially propelled backwards. It is possible that all the small particles, just like the larger ones that are visible, were also initially propelled forward, but got caught in the wind and blew backwards. That would explain why all the large particles, like the Harper fragment, ended up going forward while only the smaller particles ended up going backwards.