LNers Can't Explain the 6.5 mm Object on the JFK AP Skull X-Ray

[Michael T. Griffith]

Surely you're not comparing what you do with good police work? LOL! You dispute every bit of the "first day evidence" and 48-hour-evidence found by the Dallas Police Department and the FBI.

You're lying and misleading again. Now, you knew when you wrote this tripe that I was referring to honest detectives and policemen dealing with genuine evidence in an ethically handled case, which is not what we had with the Dallas Police Department and the FBI in the JFK case.

As you well know, or certainly should know, Dallas Police Department Chief Jesse Curry admitted to the Dallas Morning News in a 1969 interview that they did not have any proof that Oswald shot JFK:

We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand. (Dallas Morning News, 6 Nov 1969; for more info on this, see Don Thomas, "Rewriting History: Bugliosi Parses the Testimony," https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html)

To get some idea of the questionable, suspicious, and contradictory nature of the evidence against Oswald, see my article:

Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view

The "second gunman" finding (not accept by all of the Committee's members) was largely based on acoustical analysis (a science then in its early stages). The HSCA acoustics findings were overturned in 1982 by the National Research Council. In science, a theory can be challenged by subsequent analysis.

You're lying and misleading yet again. You know full well that the National Research Council (NRC) panel that rejected the HSCA acoustical evidence did not include a single acoustical scientist, and that the panel was driven by a long-time ardent WC apologist who was later caught misrepresenting data from his own ballistics tests. Why didn't you mention that?

You know full well that the NRC panel's claims were strongly challenged by the HSCA acoustical scientists. You know that in recent years Dr. Josiah Thompson arranged for several acoustical scientists at BBN to conduct additional tests on the acoustical evidence, and that those tests confirmed the acoustical evidence and refuted the NRC panel's main claim about the timing of the impulse patterns on the dictabelt. Dr. Thompson published this historic information last year in his book Last Second in Dallas. I pointed out all of these facts in a long thread on the acoustical evidence, and you participated in that thread. Yet, here you are citing the NRC panel's bogus findings.

For those who want to see just how flawed and unreliable the NRC panel's analysis is, see the following article:

The HSCA's Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman in the JFK Assassination
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view

The Justice Department in 1988 reviewed the HSCA findings, finding "reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman" and "that no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy in … the assassination of President Kennedy".

LOL! The 1988 DOJ "review" is a joke. Not a single acoustical scientist participated in that review. 

"The acoustic evidence that was the sole objective, scientific support for the existence of a conspiracy in the HSCA investigation was debunked." -- Larry Sturdivan, 2005

You might have mentioned to our readers that Sturdivan is a long-time WC apologist, that he has no background in acoustical science, and that his neuromuscular-reaction theory has been exposed as not just wrong but downright whacky. You might have mentioned that to support his neuromuscular-reaction theory, Sturdiven cited the video of a goat being shot in the head, and that the goat's reaction looks nothing like JFK's reaction in the Z film.

The opposite is true. Oswald didn't speak fluent Russian.

"Lessons took place in a second-floor room after work ...      Shushkevich just worked on verbs, and occasionally tried to teach this American colloquial Russian....Their lessons proceeded without great enthusiasm, and Oswald found      Russian difficult. He did get to a point where he could achieve understanding if Shushkevich spoke slowly, used gestures, wrote words on pieces of paper, and sometimes brought out a dictionary." -- Stanislav Shushkevich, engineer at the Minsk Factory (Norman Mailer, "Oswald’s Tale" 1995)

I already exposed this claim as erroneous in a previous reply, citing numerous Russian speakers who spoke with Oswald and who said he spoke excellent Russian. I'm mentioning your bogus claim again to provide another example of the fact that you repeatedly make bogus claims that were debunked years ago.

One of your fellow LNers here has already ditched your bogus claim in this very thread and has instead argued that the normally Russian-fluent Oswald suffered some kind of panic or anxiety episode and forgot how to speak Russian when he called the Soviet Consulate in Mexico City.

Yeah, makes perfect sense! The same Oswald who was calm and collected when the gun-toting Officer Baker confronted him less than 2 minutes after Oswald had allegedly shot JFK--this same Oswald became so flustered and excited while requesting a visa over the phone from the Soviet Consulate in Mexico City that he forgot how to speak Russian!

You mean where Blakey wrote to the Secretary of Defense: "Our photographic experts have determined that this camera, or at least the particular lens and shutter attached to it, could not have been used to take JFK's autopsy pictures."? That simply means that if the Graphic View camera provided by the DoD was the 1963 one, then the lens was different. Or there was a additional or different camera used in 1963 that the DoD was not aware of. This does nothing to undermine how the HSCA determined authenticity of the autopsy photographs.

Nope, sorry. You are once again years behind the information curve. I won't accuse you of lying in this instance, because I think the problem is that you simply have not read the post-ARRB research on this issue.

Dr. Gary Aguilar and RN Kathy Cunningham discuss this issue in their article "How Five Investigations Into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong":

https://www.historymatters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

The HSCA authenticated the Backyard Photographs using, in part, the actual camera that took the photos. Most critics didn't accept that either.

You're lying and misleading again. In a thread on the backyard photos, I personally explained to you, at great length, the gaping holes, dubious claims, and suspicious omissions in the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel's (PEP) "authentication" of the backyard rifle photos.

-- I pointed out to you that the PEP found only incredibly small differences in the distances between the objects in the backgrounds of the photos, a wildly implausible outcome for photos that were supposedly taken with a lever-operated handheld camera that was passed back and forth between each exposure.

-- I pointed out to you that the PEP was unable to duplicate the variant shadows seen in the backyard photos.

-- I pointed out to you that, incredibly, the PEP refused to publish the Penrose measurements for the backyard figure's chin.

Yet, here you are citing the PEP's alleged authentication again.

For those who want to read more about the HSCA PEP's dubious "authentication" of the backyard rifle photos, here's an article that I've written on the subject:

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view

LNers have long acknowledged the Oswald connection to 544 Camp Street. But what Oswald-Shaw connection did the HSCA publish? The CAP picnic photo was accepted by LNers. They didn't go around saying it was faked.

Eee-gads! This is too silly to waste much time on, given the veritable tsunami of evidence that we now have that Oswald worked with Banister, Shaw, and Ferrie. And, for the record, when the CAP picnic photo first came out, most LNers dismissed it as unimportant and argued that it did not prove a Ferrie-Oswald relationship. Remember?

No problem with "hard scientific evidence". Problem with non-peer-reviewed Mantik's "hard scientific evidence". You likewise push forward hardened over-dramatized conclusions rather than focus on a single element and "drill down".

You're lying and misleading again. I've repeatedly pointed out to you that Dr. Mantik's OD research was reviewed by Dr. Arthur Haas, who was the director of Kodak's Department of Medical Physics at the time. I've repeatedly pointed out to you that Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, did his own OD measurements on the autopsy x-rays at the National Archives and that his measurements mirror Dr. Mantik's. I've noted that Dr. Greg Henkelmann, a radiation oncologist, has endoresed Dr. Mantik's OD research. In fact, let's quote from Dr. Henkelmann's endorsement:

Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology.

Other scientists who have endorsed Dr. Mantik's OD research include Dr. Donald Siple (former chief radiologist at Maryland General Hospital), Dr. Gary Aguilar (an ophthalmology specialist and a former professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University and the University of California), and Dr. Phil Bretz, a general surgeon who has worked extensively in the field of treating certain forms of cancer.

Dr. Bretz was one of the pre-publication reviewers of Dr. Mantik's new book. In fact, Dr. Bretz argued for a stronger title for the book; one of the titles he recommended was "JFK Assassination Paradoxes: Scientific Proof of Conspiracy."

Just look at your pitiful attempts to explain the 6.5 mm object over the years (and in this thread). For years and years, you guys insisted that the object was a bullet fragment, even after Dr. Mantik published his OD measurements on the object. You blindly cited the findings of three government medical panels that said it was a bullet fragment, and you ignored the powerful wound ballistics evidence that the object could not be a fragment from an FMJ bullet, and you ignored Dr. Mantik's OD findings. Then, along came Larry Sturdivan, who, to his great credit, explained why the object could not be an FMJ bullet fragment, and suddenly you guys began to admit that the object was not a bullet fragment after all.

So then you guys were left scrambling to come up with an explanation for how an artifact could have been accidentally formed on a skull x-ray during a presidential autopsy, and how that artifact could be perfectly circular in 3/4 of its shape, could appear on only one skull x-ray and not on any of the others, could end up with a notch that is remarkably neat in shape, could end up perfectly overlapping the image of a small genuine bullet fragment, and could end up being, by what you say is just another coincidence, 6.5 mm in diameter, the same diameter as the ammo allegedly used by Oswald.

We've drilled-down on your claims many times here (ie: the Brehm boy in the Zfilm) and, rather than concede you were proven wrong, you posted more deflections in the form of cut-n-paste "conclusions".

It is comical that you would claim that I was "proven wrong" about the Brehm boy's movements in the Z film. Neither you nor your fellow WC apologists did any such thing. I invite interested readers to go read the exchanges I had with Organ et al on the Brehm boy in the Z film.

I repeat my standing challenge to WC apologists to conduct a simulation of the Brehm boy's movements. If your test subject manages to duplicate those movements in 0.56 seconds, post the video. I conducted my own simulation with my youngest son, and he could never come close to duplicating the Brehm boy's movements in the allotted time.

For more info on the evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film, see my article:

Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view

Some of what Mantik believes:

• The Zapruder film is faked ("Special Effects in the Zapruder Film: How the Film of the Century was Edited" 1998)
• Witnesses say Kennedy was struck in the head by two separate shots
• The limousine is stopped in the Moorman Photo

And? You cite these science-backed claims as if they were dubious. Yet, you say nothing about the mountain of research that supports these claims. Are you aware of the Hollywood film experts who've concluded that the Z film has been altered? Are you aware of the new evidence that shows that the Z film was taken to a CIA-contracted lab in New York and that two versions of the film were viewed and briefed at the CIA? Of course you are, because I've discussed these things many times in this forum and in threads in which you participated. Yet, you said nothing about any of this evidence but repeated your talking points.

And, just to clarify, Dr. Mantik has not claimed that witnesses said "JFK was hit in the head twice." He has said that the eyewitness accounts describe two head shots, which they do.

[Jerry Organ]

You're lying and misleading again. Now, you knew when you wrote this tripe that I was referring to honest detectives and policemen dealing with genuine evidence in an ethically handled case, which is not what we had with the Dallas Police Department and the FBI in the JFK case.

Are you saying the Dallas Police and FBI were "in" on the conspiracy and cover-up before the assassination even occurred? They were somehow planting evidence as they went along that weekend?

As you well know, or certainly should know, Dallas Police Department Chief Jesse Curry

Don't you think Curry was one of the dishonest authorities doing his part to aid the conspiracy and cover-up? I guess it depends on your cherry-pick.

admitted to the Dallas Morning News in a 1969 interview that they did not have any proof that Oswald shot JFK:

          We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
     Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.
     (Dallas Morning News, 6 Nov 1969; for more info on this, see Don Thomas,
     "Rewriting History: Bugliosi Parses the Testimony," https://www.mary-ferrell.
     org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html)

Not sure what Curry was getting at, unless he meant absolute proof like high-quality film of Oswald shooting from the window. Curry was promoting his book, which certainly agreed that Oswald shot Tippit.

To get some idea of the questionable, suspicious, and contradictory nature of the evidence against Oswald, see my article:

Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view

This caught my eye on the first page:

    "In 1992 the American Bar Association conducted two mock Oswald
     trials. The first trial ended in a hung jury. In the second trial, the jury
     acquitted Oswald."

There was only one ABA Mock Trial, held for five hours on August 10-11, 1992. No JFK assassination conspiracy theory was presented or cross-examined. Most of the witnesses portrayed by actors were darlings of the CTs:

• Carolyn Arnold
• Gordon Arnold
• Acquila Clemmons
• Dr. Charles Crenshaw
• Jean Hill
• S.M Holland

The only real-life medical witness was -- get this -- Dr. Cyril Wecht.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The refusal of WC apologists to face the facts about the 6.5 mm object is similar to the refusal of a small band of Nixon diehards who still refuse to believe that the 18-minute gap in the 6/20/72 Watergate tape resulted from a deliberate criminal act. When people don't want to admit the occurrence of a criminal act, virtually no amount of evidence will cause them to change their minds. As long as the innocent explanation is theoretically possible, they will cling to it, no matter how wildly improbable and ridiculous it is.

It is theoretically possible that Rose Mary Woods accidentally erased five different segments of the 6/20/72 Watergate tape by mistakenly pushing the "record" button and then holding her foot on the dictabelt machine's pedal for a total of 18.5 minutes while allegedly talking the phone. It's also possible that Ms. Woods was telling a white lie when she said she could not have erased more than 5 minutes of the tape. After all, maybe she didn't want to admit that she had gabbed on the phone for 18.5 minutes. Yes, this is theoretically possible, but it defies common sense and reason; the fact that the erasure was not continuous but was split into five segments suggests to logical people that the erasure was not accidental.

WC apologists' "explanation" for the 6.5 mm object is even more unbelievable than the tale that Ms. Woods accidentally caused the 18.5-minute gap on the 6/20/72 tape. At least the Woods story includes a plausible method by which the 18.5 minutes could have been erased--it's very unlikely that this method occurred, but it could have happened.

However, of the three explanations for the 6.5 mm object offered by WC apologists, only one of them is even theoretically possible. Two of the three explanations (acid drop and stray metal disk in x-ray cassette) are physically impossible. That only leaves the theory that the AP skull x-ray was taken while there was a "stray metal disk" lying on the autopsy table. But WC apologists can't identify what kind of disk it could have been, can't identify a disk that was 6.5 mm in diameter, can't explain how a neatly defined notch would have been chipped from the disk, can't explain why the disk/object does not appear in any of the other skull x-rays, etc., etc.

For many years, LNers insisted that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment, an FMJ bullet fragment. Skeptics pointed out that no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science had sheared off a fragment while penetrating a human skull and had deposited the fragment on the outer table of the skull. WC apologists replied that the esteemed forensic experts on three government medical panels (Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission panel, HSCA medical panel) had identified the 6.5 mm object as a bullet fragment. Critics noted that those experts did not cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had deposited a fragment in this manner, and that the autopsy doctors did not mention the object in the autopsy report or in their WC testimony. Yet, lone-gunman theorists continued to insist that the object was a bullet fragment.

Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue came along in the 1990s and noted, as conspiracy theorists had been arguing for years, that it was extremely unlikely that an FMJ bullet would deposit a fragment on the outer table of the skull while striking it, and that forensic science knew of no FMJ bullet that had ever behaved in this manner. LNers rejected Donahue's perfectly valid arguments, noting that Donahue also posited an accidental fatal shot from a Secret Service agent riding in the follow-up car, and once again citing the fact that three government medical panels had concluded the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment.

Later in the 1990s, Dr. David Mantik first published his optical density (OD) measurements done on the autopsy skull x-rays at the National Archives and noted that the OD readings proved that the 6.5 mm object was not metallic. Dr. Mantik reported that he was even able to duplicate how the object could have been added. I remember very well presenting the OD evidence to LNers in online forums, and every single one of them dismissed this hard scientific evidence and repeated the point that "all those experts" on the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel, and the HSCA's medical panel had said the object was a bullet fragment.

Then, along came wound ballistics expert and former HSCA consultant Larry Sturdivan with his 2005 book The JFK Myths. Using the same essential argument that critics had long been using, Sturdivan explained in his book why the 6.5 mm object simply could not be an FMJ bullet fragment. This time, since Sturdivan was (and is) an ardent lone-gunman theorist and a staunch WC defender, WC apologists began to change their minds. Nowadays, most LNers have ditched the bullet-fragment claim and acknowledge that the 6.5 mm object is an artifact.

However, WC apologists claim that the artifact was created accidentally, with no criminal intent. But, as mentioned, their only theoretically possible innocent explanation is that a metal disk somehow got onto the autopsy table, that nobody noticed it (including the radiologist and the x-ray technician when they were preparing to x-ray the skull), that the AP x-ray was taken while the disk was on the table, and that the 6.5 mm object is the image of that disk. Yet, as also mentioned, WC apologists can't identify what kind of disk it could have been, can't identify a disk that was 6.5 mm in diameter, can't explain how a neatly defined notch would have been chipped from the disk, can't explain why the disk/object does not appear in any of the other skull x-rays, etc., etc.

Of course, this far-fetched theory also requires us to believe that the disk just happened to be in the right position to cause its x-rayed image to perfecty overlay the image of a small genuine fragment on the outer table of the skull.

This far-fetched theory also requires us to believe that someone noticed the disk after the AP x-ray was taken and that it was removed from the table before the lateral x-rays were taken. But this naturally begs the question of why the radiologist and/or the x-ray tech would not have retaken the AP x-ray in order to get an x-ray that did not include an artifact that so clearly looked like a bullet fragment.

In addition, this far-fetched theory fails to explain why the radiologist, Dr. Ebersole, said nothing about the 6.5 mm object in his HSCA testimony and why he refused to discuss the object with Dr. Mantik. Nor does this theory explain why the x-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, in his many interviews with Dr. Mantik, never claimed that Dr. Ebersole identified a 6.5 mm object as an artifact during the autopsy and why Custer never claimed that he himself saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy.

[Charles Collins]

The refusal of WC apologists to face the facts about the 6.5 mm object is similar to the refusal of a small band of Nixon diehards who still refuse to believe that the 18-minute gap in the 6/20/72 Watergate tape resulted resulted from a deliberate criminal act. When people don't want to admit the occurrence of a criminal act, virtually no amount of evidence will cause them to change their minds. As long as the innocent explanation is theoretically possible, they will cling to it, no matter how wildly improbable and ridiculous it is.

It is theoretically possible that Rose Mary Woods accidentally erased five different segments of the 6/20/72 Watergate tape by mistakenly pushing the "record" button and then holding her foot on the dictabelt machine's pedal for a total of 18.5 minutes while allegedly talking the phone. It's also possible that Ms. Woods was telling a white lie when she said she could not have erased more than 5 minutes of the tape. After all, maybe she didn't want to admit that she had gabbed on the phone for 18.5 minutes. Yes, this is theoretically possible, but it defies common sense and reason; the fact that the erasure was not continuous but was split into five segments suggests to logical people that the erasure was not accidental.

WC apologists' "explanation" for the 6.5 mm object is even more unbelievable than the tale that Ms. Woods accidentally caused the 18.5-minute gap on the 6/20/72 tape. At least the Woods story includes a plausible method by which the 18.5 minutes could have been erased--it's very unlikely that this method occurred, but it could have happened.

However, of the three explanations for the 6.5 mm object offered by WC apologists, only one of them is even theoretically possible. Two of the three explanations (acid drop and stray metal disk in x-ray cassette) are physically impossible. That only leaves the theory that the AP skull x-ray was taken while there was a "stray metal disk" lying on the autopsy table. But WC apologists can't identify what kind of disk it could have been, can't identify a disk that was 6.5 mm in diameter, can't explain how a neatly defined notch would have been chipped from the disk, can't explain why the disk/object does not appear in any of the other skull x-rays, etc., etc.

For many years, LNers insisted that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment. Skeptics pointed out that no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science had sheared off a fragment while penetrating a human skull and had deposited the fragment on the outer table of the skull. WC apologists replied that the esteemed forensic experts on three government medical panels (Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission panel, HSCA medical panel) had identified the 6.5 mm object as a bullet fragment. Critics noted that those experts did not cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had deposited a fragment in this manner, and that the autopsy doctors did not mention the object in the autopsy report or in their WC testimony. Yet, lone-gunman theorists continued to insist that the object was a bullet fragment.

Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue came along in the 1990s and noted, as conspiracy theorists had been arguing for years, that it was extremely unlikely that an FMJ bullet would deposit a fragment on the outer table of the skull while striking it, and that forensic science knew of no FMJ bullet that had ever behaved in this manner. LNers rejected Donahue's perfectly valid arguments, noting that Donahue also posited an accidental fatal shot from a Secret Service agent riding in the follow-up car, and once again citing the fact that three government medical panels had concluded the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment.

Later in the 1990s, Dr. David Mantik first published his optical density (OD) measurements done on the autopsy skull x-rays at the National Archives and noted that the OD readings proved that the 6.5 mm object was not metallic. Dr. Mantik reported that he was even able to duplicate how the object could have been added. I remember very well presenting the OD evidence to LNers in online forums, and every single one of them dismissed this hard scientific evidence and repeated the point that "all those experts" on the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel, and the HSCA's medical panel had said the object was a bullet fragment.

Then, along came wound ballistics expert and former HSCA consultant Larry Sturdivan with his 2005 book The JFK Myths. Using the same essential argument that critics had long been using, Sturdivan explained in his book why the 6.5 mm object simply could not be a bullet fragment. This time, since Sturdivan was (and is) an ardent lone-gunman theorist and a staunch WC defender, WC apologists began to change their minds. Nowadays, most LNers have ditched the bullet-fragment claim and acknowledge that the 6.5 mm object is an artifact.

However, WC apologists claim that the artifact was created accidentally, with no criminal intent. But, as mentioned, their only theoretically possible innocent explanation is that a metal disk somehow got onto the autopsy table, that nobody noticed it (including the radiologist and the x-ray technician when they were preparing to x-ray the skull), that the AP x-ray was taken while the disk was on the table, and that the 6.5 mm object is the image of that disk. Yet, as also mentioned, WC apologists can't identify what kind of disk it could have been, can't identify a disk that was 6.5 mm in diameter, can't explain how a neatly defined notch would have been chipped from the disk, can't explain why the disk/object does not appear in any of the other skull x-rays, etc., etc.

Of course, this far-fetched theory also requires us to believe that the disk just happened to be in the right position to cause its x-rayed image to perfecty overlay the image of a small genuine fragment on the outer table of the skull.

This far-fetched theory also requires us to believe that someone noticed the disk after the AP x-ray was taken and that it was removed from the table before the lateral x-rays were taken. But this naturally begs the question of why the radiologist and/or the x-ray tech would not have retaken the AP x-ray in order to get an x-ray that did not include an artifact that so clearly looked like a bullet fragment.

In addition, this far-fetched theory fails to explain why the radiologist, Dr. Ebersole, said nothing about the 6.5 mm object in his HSCA testimony and why he refused to discuss the object with Dr. Mantik. Nor does this theory explain why the x-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, in his many interviews with Dr. Mantik, never claimed that Dr. Ebersole identified a 6.5 mm object as an artifact during the autopsy and why Custer never claimed that he himself saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy.

Let me get this straight…

To believe Mantik’s theory, one would have to believe that Jerrol and Ebersole processed the X-rays back on 11/22/63 and that there was no “6.5-millimeter” artifact on that X-ray. (This is because Mantik claims it was added later.) However, neither Ebersole or Jerrol have said anything like: “Wait a minute, I don’t remember seeing that artifact on the X-ray during the autopsy.”

I find it impossible to believe that something that size, if it was added to the X-ray after the autopsy, wouldn’t  cause one of them to raise a red flag and say something to the effect that it wasn’t there on 11/22/63. So therefore I have to believe that it was there during the autopsy and Gagne’s explanation, posted earlier in this thread, makes good sense to me.

Therefore, as mentioned before, the title to this thread is blatantly wrong.

[Jerry Organ]

The refusal of WC apologists to face the facts about the 6.5 mm object is similar to the refusal of a small band of Nixon diehards who still refuse to believe that the 18-minute gap in the 6/20/72 Watergate tape resulted resulted from a deliberate criminal act. When people don't want to admit the occurrence of a criminal act, virtually no amount of evidence will cause them to change their minds. As long as the innocent explanation is theoretically possible, they will cling to it, no matter how wildly improbable and ridiculous it is.

Sounds like the Anybody-But-Oswald crowd. Physician, heal thyself.

It is theoretically possible that Rose Mary Woods accidentally erased five different segments of the 6/20/72 Watergate tape by mistakenly pushing the "record" button and then holding her foot on the dictabelt machine's pedal for a total of 18.5 minutes while allegedly talking the phone. It's also possible that Ms. Woods was telling a white lie when she said she could not have erased more than 5 minutes of the tape. After all, maybe she didn't want to admit that she had gabbed on the phone for 18.5 minutes. Yes, this is theoretically possible, but it defies common sense and reason; the fact that the erasure was not continuous but was split into five segments suggests to logical people that the erasure was not accidental.

See how obsessive and unable to stop he gets over just about any random incidental thought.

WC apologists' "explanation" for the 6.5 mm object is even more unbelievable than the tale that Ms. Woods accidentally caused the 18.5-minute gap on the 6/20/72 tape. At least the Woods story includes a plausible method by which the 18.5 minutes could have been erased--it's very unlikely that this method occurred, but it could have happened.

However, of the three explanations for the 6.5 mm object offered by WC apologists, only one of them is even theoretically possible. Two of the three explanations (acid drop and stray metal disk in x-ray cassette) are physically impossible. That only leaves the theory that the AP skull x-ray was taken while there was a "stray metal disk" lying on the autopsy table. But WC apologists can't identify what kind of disk it could have been, can't identify a disk that was 6.5 mm in diameter, can't explain how a neatly defined notch would have been chipped from the disk, can't explain why the disk/object does not appear in any of the other skull x-rays, etc., etc.

I doubt that "WC apologists" have been promoting an "acid drop". Pat Speer did some actual research on the matter of artifacts on x-ray and found this image from the 1969 book "Radiography in Modern Industry". "A drop of fixer" -- not "acid". It's something to consider, as is the idea it was an artifact recognized as such on the night of the autopsy.

For many years, LNers insisted that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment, an FMJ bullet fragment.

Not just a handful of LNers (Lattimer) but Cyril Wecht.

    "Since it is not seen on the lateral x-rays, it is by definition an
     artifact. An artifact may be a real object or a defect in film pro-
     cessing ... The term does not mean that it is an artificial object."
          -- Dr. Chad Zimmerman to Vincent Bugliosi,
              letter dated March 15, 2006

Then, along came wound ballistics expert and former HSCA consultant Larry Sturdivan with his 2005 book The JFK Myths. Using the same essential argument that critics had long been using, Sturdivan explained in his book why the 6.5 mm object simply could not be an FMJ bullet fragment. This time, since Sturdivan was (and is) an ardent lone-gunman theorist and a staunch WC defender, WC apologists began to change their minds. Nowadays, most LNers have ditched the bullet-fragment claim and acknowledge that the 6.5 mm object is an artifact.

Maybe I missed something, but I can't see where the 1991 "Conspiracy of One" or the 1993 book "Case Closed", for example, promote the 6.5mm object as a sheared bullet fragment.

[Tim Nickerson]

Lone-gunman theorists still refuse to come to grips with the hard scientific evidence that the 6.5 mm object was added to the JFK autopsy anterior-posterior (AP) skull x-ray, even though this fact has been confirmed by scores of optical density (OD) measurements, and even though the ARRB forensic radiologist admitted that there is no object on the lateral skull x-rays that corresponds in density and brightness to the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray.

The 6.5 mm object is the largest and most obvious non-bone object on the AP skull x-ray. A first-year medical student would have no problem quickly identifying it as the largest apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray. The object appears to be located on the rear outer table of the skull. The Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission’s medical panel, and the HSCA’s medical panel, not having the benefit of OD measurements, logically concluded that the object was a bullet fragment.

The problems with the 6.5 mm object start with the fact that, incredibly, the autopsy doctors did not mention the object in the autopsy report. They did not mention it during their Warren Commission testimony. They said nothing about it in their HSCA testimony. When the ARRB asked them about the object, they said they did not see it during the autopsy. They did not see it during the autopsy because it was added to the AP x-ray after the autopsy.

Since the nose and tail of the supposed single headshot bullet were found in
JFK’s limousine, any fragments on the rear outer table of the skull would have
had to come from the internal cross-section of the bullet. However, Oswald allegedly
used full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) bullets, and FMJ bullets have never been known
to deposit fragments from their cross-section at the entry site when they hit a
skull. Never. This fact led HSCA ballistics expert (and lone-gunman theorist)
Larry Sturdivan to acknowledge that the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet
fragment (Sturdivan, The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy
Assassination, Paragon House, Nook Edition, 2005, pp. 168-170).

Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have done OD measurements on the 6.5 mm object. These measurements prove that the object is not metallic. The OD measurements and high-magnification analysis of the object reveal that it is a ghosted image that was added to the x-ray via double exposure. Dr. Mantik has even able to duplicate the method that was used to add the object.

The 6.5 mm object was ghosted over the image of a small genuine fragment on the back of the head. The small genuine fragment is on the right side of the object (viewer’s left). There is also a very tiny metallic fleck in the right side of the object (viewer’s left). The OD measurements confirm that the small fragment on the viewer’s left side of the object is metallic.

Most lone-gunman theorists cite Larry Sturdivan's far-fetched explanations for the 6.5 mm object. Sturdivan has offered three explanations: one is that a drop of acid somehow fell on the AP x-ray film and created the 6.5 mm object; one is that a stray metal disk somehow got stuck on the x-ray film cassette; and the third is that a stray metal disk fell the autopsy table and was not noticed when the AP x-ray was taken.

Leaving aside the question of where a drop of acid would have come from in the first place, since when do drops of acid include a well-defined notch that disrupts an otherwise perfectly round shape? The 6.5 mm object has a notch missing on its bottom right side (viewer’s right), but the rest of it is perfectly round. This is one of several problems with the acid-drop theory. The fatal problem with the theory is that if the 6.5 mm object were caused by an acid drop, the x-ray film's emulsion would be visibly altered at this site, but the emulsion is completely intact (Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 150).

That leaves the stray-metal-disk theories. First of all, what kind of metal disk would have been present that could have somehow dropped onto the autopsy table or gotten stuck in an x-ray film cassette during a presidential autopsy? Anyway, if a metal disk had been inside the film cassette, it would have produced a dark area at the spot of the 6.5 mm object, not a transparent one.

If a metal disk had been lying next to JFK's head on the autopsy table when the AP x-ray was taken, it would appear on the lateral x-rays as well, but it does not. Of course, it goes without saying that if the radiologist and/or the x-ray technician had noticed a disk lying on the autopsy table after they took the AP x-ray, they would not have taken the lateral x-rays until they retook the AP x-ray.

For more information on the 6.5 mm object as hard scientific evidence that the JFK autopsy AP skull x-ray has been altered, see the following studies:

The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest “Metallic Fragment” (Dr. Mantik)
https://themantikview.org/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf

A Review of the JFK Cranial Autopsy X-Rays and Photographs (Dr. Chesser)
https://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/

Dr. Mantik’s response to Pat Speer’s critique of his research on the JFK autopsy materials (includes several pages dealing with the 6.5 mm object)
https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf

The Suspicious 6.5 mm “Fragment” (yours truly)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QXCUhA5i4FmCic2nLDOnwMdCNSOa1Q10/view

JFK Autopsy “Bullet Fragment” X-Ray Was Faked (Jim Marrs)
This is a good summary in layman’s terms of the scientific evidence regarding the 6.5 mm object.
https://www.naturalnews.com/050959_jfk_assassination_x-ray_evidence_forensic_analysis.html

The "6.5 mm" fragment seen in the AP view is the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed from above and somewhat behind the President's right eye.

[Michael T. Griffith]

There's another aspect of the 6.5 mm object that WC apologists cannot explain, an aspect that constitutes powerful evidence of a second gunman: the fact that the 6.5 mm object contains--actually, is superimposed over--the image of a small genuine bullet fragment about 2.5 mm in size. OD measurements confirm that the 2.5 mm object is metallic. This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, for the same reasons that Larry Sturdivan said the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ bullet fragment.

Oddly, in his 2005 book, Sturdivan does not even mention the 2.5 mm fragment, nor does he discuss the other small back-of-head fragment that was identified by Dr. Gerald McDonnel for the HSCA, though he was surely aware of both of them. The McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and the 6.5 mm object is 1 cm below the now-debunked cowlick entry site and 9 cm (3.5 inches) above the EOP entry site. These two fragments could only be ricochet fragments--that is the only scientifically plausible explanation. But, again, Sturdivan does not mention either of these fragments.

However, Sturdivan does explain why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ fragment. I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (The JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)

Just to fully explain the absurdity of the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand that, according to WC apologists, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine. Thus, in this fanciful scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed inside the limousine.

Yes, this is a patently absurd scenario, a scenario that virtually no one takes seriously anymore, but for many years this was the scenario that WC apologists adamantly defended--until lone-gunman theorist Sturdivan, to his credit, demolished it in his 2005 book. (It had been demolished before, but only by critics, and WC apologists refused to listen to the critics' eminently scientific and logical case against it.)

However, as mentioned, Sturdivan says nothing about the 2.5 mm metal fragment inside the 6.5 mm object, nor does he say anything about the McDonnel fragment. Forensic science and wound ballistics tell us that no FMJ missile could have deposited the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. They could only be ricochet fragments.

Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue said that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told him that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object "looked like a ricochet fragment" (Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 65). The Clark Panel did not have the benefit of OD analysis, so they did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that its image is superimposed over the image of a small genuine fragment. But Fisher's comment to Donahue shows that the panel members realized that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull nearly half an inch away from the presumed entry point (much less 3.5 inches away from it).

There is credible evidence that a bullet struck the curb near JFK's limo early in the shooting sequence, as many researchers have noted, and many kinds of bullets that strike concrete will send fragments flying from the impact. Donahue, though he rejected the conspiracy view, acknowledged this evidence of the curb shot and cogently argued that ricochet fragments from this bullet are the only scientifically feasible explanation for any back-of-head fragment, since no FMJ missile would have deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The "6.5 mm" fragment seen in the AP view is the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed from above and somewhat behind the President's right eye.

Phew! LOL! Are you stuck in a time warp and living in the early 1990s or something? Even most of your fellow WC apologists have abandoned that silly argument. The 7 x 2 mm fragment was in the front of the skull and is readily identifiable on the AP skull x-ray. The 6.5 mm object is on the rear outer table of the skull and is undeniably well below and to the right of the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray, not to mention the fact that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic.

Sheesh, read some research that was published after 1998 before you talk about the JFK case again.

Posted by: Charles Collins:

To believe Mantik’s theory, one would have to believe that Jerrol and Ebersole processed the X-rays back on 11/22/63 and that there was no “6.5-millimeter” artifact on that X-ray. (This is because Mantik claims it was added later.) However, neither Ebersole or Jerrol have said anything like: “Wait a minute, I don’t remember seeing that artifact on the X-ray during the autopsy.”

HUH??? Incredibly, Ebersole was never asked about the 6.5 mm object when he spoke with the HSCA medical panel, and he said nothing about it in his testimony. When Dr. Mantik asked Ebersole about the 6.5 mm object, he refused to discuss it.

There's also the fact that when the ARRB asked the autopsy doctors about the 6.5 mm object, they said they never saw it during the autopsy. They didn't say, "Oh, that was identified by the radiologist as an artifact during the autopsy." No, they said they never saw it.

As for Custer, I've already pointed out that in all of Custer's many interviews with Dr. Mantik (the two became friends over the years), Custer never once claimed that he saw the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays, and he never said that Ebersole identified such an object as an artifact. And I've showed herein that, even based solely on Custer's words in his ARRB testimony, it is by no means clear that Custer was referring to the 6.5 mm object when he mentioned Ebersole's artifact conclusion. Even David Von Pein admits that he's not certain that Custer was referring to the 6.5 mm object.

And, again, in all of his conversations with Dr. Mantik, Custer never said he saw the 6.5 mm object on any x-ray during the autopsy, and never said that Ebersole identified such an object as an artifact.

Posted by: Jerry Organ:

I doubt that "WC apologists" have been promoting an "acid drop". Pat Speer did some actual research on the matter of artifacts on x-ray and found this image from the 1969 book "Radiography in Modern Industry". "A drop of fixer" -- not "acid". It's something to consider, as is the idea it was an artifact recognized as such on the night of the autopsy.

Uh, Larry Sturdivan, one of your leading lone-gunman-theory experts, whose book received rave reviews from your crowd, has been peddling the acid-drop theory as a possible explanation for the 6.5 mm object since 2005.

No, the 6.5 mm object was not recognized as an artifact during the autopsy. Your only "evidence" for this claim is an ambiguous statement from Custer during his ARRB interview. Moreover, as mentioned, Ebersole never breathed a word about the object in his HSCA testimony and refused to discuss the object when Dr. Mantik asked him about it. Additionally, as also mentioned, in all of his numerous interviews with Dr. Mantik, Custer never once claimed that he saw the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, and never said that Ebersole identified such an object as an artifact during the autopsy.

Oh, Pat Speer has done some "real research" on this issue, hey?! Is this the same Pat Speer who erroneously said that Dr. Mantik didn't do any OD measurements on any of the unenhanced autopsy x-rays (when those were the only x-rays he used), who claimed that the overlapping bone in the lateral x-rays is the white patch (when the overlapping bone is in a different part of the skull), who claimed that the skull x-rays were overexposed (when they clearly were not, as confirmed by OD measurements), who claimed that the club-shaped object in the forehead is "basically invisible to the naked eye" on the original x-rays (when it is actually very easy to see on the extant x-rays at the National Archives), and who still claims that it is "obvious" that the 6.5 mm object is a cross-section slice from a bullet (when Sturdivan exploded that fantasy years ago, and when virtually everyone now agrees that the object is an artifact)? That Pat Speer?

For your and Pat Speer's information, fixing solution is acidic. Leaving aside that inconvenient fact, and just for the sake of argument, how exactly would a drop of fixing solution have gotten onto the AP x-ray at a time and in a way to cause an artifact, much less a perfectly circular artifact with a semi-circular chip neatly carved out of it, given the fact that x-rays are developed by placing them in a tray filled with fixing solution? Furthermore, when x-rays are developed, they are subjected to a "final wash" specifically "to remove residual fixer chemicals, i.e., acid, thiosulfate, and silver salts from the film" (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/dental/sophs/material/processing.pdf).

Posted by: Jerry Organ:

"Since it is not seen on the lateral x-rays, it is by definition an artifact. An artifact may be a real object or a defect in film processing ... The term does not mean that it is an artificial object." -- Dr. Chad Zimmerman to Vincent Bugliosi, letter dated March 15, 2006

Umm, again, your own top expert, Sturdivan, has explained why the 6.5 mm object cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment. What's more, Dr. Fitzpatrick acknowledged that there is no object on the lateral x-rays that corresponds in density and brightness with the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-rays, which, of course, is a physical impossibility unless the x-rays have been altered.

Posted by: Jerry Organ:
Maybe I missed something, but I can't see where the 1991 "Conspiracy of One" or the 1993 book "Case Closed", for example, promote the 6.5 mm object as a sheared bullet fragment.

Are you serious? This is just silly. Juvenile. And dishonest cherry-picking. Did Moore or Posner raise a single question about the 6.5 mm object? Did they discuss a single problem with the idea that it was an FMJ bullet fragment? Hey?

Let's do a quick history review, shall we? Just to show how dishonest and misleading your evasive polemic is.

For years, both sides assumed the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment, but skeptics argued, citing powerful forensic and wound ballistics science, that it could not be a fragment from an FMJ bullet. But you guys ignored all this evidence and kept citing the Clark Panel, the RC medical panel, and the HSCA medical panel.

Then, along came the OD measurements, performed by two separate experts, one a physicist and radiation oncologist, and the other a neurologist, which proved that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that it is positioned over the image of a small genuine bullet fragment. But you guys ignored this hard science and kept citing the Clark Panel, the RC medical panel, and the HSCA medical panel.

But then, in 2005, Larry Sturdivan went public with his case for why it is impossible for the 6.5 mm object to be an FMJ bullet fragment. Only then did you guys finally face forensic and wound ballistics reality about the object.

But how many years is it going to take to get you guys to admit that there is no rational, credible innocent-artifact explanation? Both sides now agree that the 6.5 mm object is an artifact, but you guys can't bring yourselves to face the obvious fact that it was added after the autopsy and instead float ridiculous innocent explanations for it, only one of which is even theoretically possible.