Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The Suspicious 6.5 mm "Fragment": Further Evidence of Fraud in JFK X-Rays  (Read 6278 times)

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Advertisement
The full title of the article is "The Suspicious 6.5 mm 'Fragment': Further Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy X-Rays." Here's the link:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment.pdf

This is a vastly revised and expanded version of my old article on the 6.5 mm object in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.

The 6.5 mm object is clear, compelling proof that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. The article explains why the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP skull x-ray and the relationship between the object and the fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays and the two conflicting sites for the rear head entry wound.

The article also discusses the fact that the fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the extant autopsy skull x-rays, and that the fragment trail that does appear on the x-rays is not mentioned in the autopsy report.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2020, 05:30:50 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Tonkovich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
The full title of the article is "The Suspicious 6.5 mm 'Fragment': Further Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy X-Rays." Here's the link:

https://miketgriffith.com/files/65fragment.pdf

This is a vastly revised and expanded version of my old article on the 6.5 mm object in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.

The 6.5 mm object is clear, compelling proof that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. The article explains why the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP skull x-ray and the relationship between the object and the fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays and the two conflicting sites for the rear head entry wound.

The article also discusses the fact that the fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the extant autopsy skull x-rays, and that the fragment trail that does appear on the x-rays is not mentioned in the autopsy report.

EOP?
Cowlick?

And the answer is...both!

It's pretty simple.
Your line about JFK needing to be " slumped forward" - I paraphrase - explains it all.

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1727

EOP?
Cowlick?

And the answer is...both!

It's pretty simple.
Your line about JFK needing to be " slumped forward" - I paraphrase - explains it all.

Why the need to assume a “slumped forward” position? Either the EOP or the Cowlick can be hit from the TSBD sniper’s nest.

The need for a “slumped forward” position is only needed if one does not understand that bullet fragments do not always follow a straight path through the body. Indeed, in general, bullet fragments follow a curved path. This is something any true ballistic expert can tell you. And has clearly demonstrated many times with photographs of ballistic gel blocks, after they have been shot with an embedded bone target, resulting in clearly visible curved paths in the ballistic blocks formed by the resulting fragments.

But this was something that was not understood by the HSCA. Hence, their totally unnecessary “slumped forward” hypothesis. To allow a straight line from the TSBD sniper’s nest, through the cowlick entry wound that they “deduced”, which allowed a straight-line path through the exit wound.

Of course, this explanation is no good. It goes against what is seen in the Zapruder film. And because of where the fragments struck windshield frame and windshield, which are not anywhere near this straight line. And is totally unnecessary because a bullet could strike either the EOP or cowlick, follow a curved path, exit the exit wound and head straight for the windshield frame or windshield on slightly diverting paths. It is just more plausible if the bullet struck the EOP. The resulting curve is less extreme and simpler than the curve that would correspond to the cowlick entry.


But, CTers will happily continue to site this gaff by the HSCA even though this “slumped forward” hypothesis has never been a leading contender among LNers. But CTers will continue to pretend that it has been and still is.

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Tonkovich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
Mr Elliot: the " slumped forward" position is supported by the evidence, especially the autopsy, and the ballistics. Also, the Z film.

As an aside, I am not a " conspiracy theorist", thank you.

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1727

Mr Elliot: the " slumped forward" position is supported by the evidence, especially the autopsy, and the ballistics. Also, the Z film.

As an aside, I am not a " conspiracy theorist", thank you.

My apology. I assumed you were referring to the extreme slump forward position of one of the HSCA diagrams. Yes, Frame 312 does show a slight lean forward.

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Tonkovich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
My apology. I assumed you were referring to the extreme slump forward position of one of the HSCA diagrams. Yes, Frame 312 does show a slight lean forward.

Mr Elliot: more slumping after that.

Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3160
Mr Elliot: more slumping after that.

Hi John,

just out of interest, is this the shot that hits JFK at the base of his neck, exits the front of his skull and hits Connally on a downward trajectory?

Offline John Tonkovich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
Hi John,

just out of interest, is this the shot that hits JFK at the base of his neck, exits the front of his skull and hits Connally on a downward trajectory?

Mr O'meara: Yes. The third shot, right in front of Mr Altgens, who mentions said shot in his testimony. Long after Z312.
Mr Altgens is quite visible in the Zapruder film, standing on the grass.
Odd, isn't it, that his pictures were a big part of the Warren investigation, yet Mr Altgens was called to testify only after the issue of his non-appearance was raised in the press.
His testimony is quite informative, and readily available on the web. Enjoy!

JFK Assassination Forum