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

[Tim Nickerson]

When are you going to face the fact that the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both visible on the AP x-ray? When?

When are you going to post the enhanced AP and lateral X-Rays with your arrows pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in them? When?

Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment. He said--and the x-rays confirm--that it was in the front part of the skull.

Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue".

Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there (on CE-388), are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.

It boggles the mind to try to fathom why Humes would not have removed the 6.5 mm object if it had been on the x-rays during the autopsy. Why would he have removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment and not also removed the most obvious apparent fragment on the AP x-ray?

Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficuity, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment.  Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.

[Michael T. Griffith]

When are you going to post the enhanced AP and lateral X-Rays with your arrows pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in them? When?

Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue".

Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there (on CE-388), are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.

Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficuity, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment.  Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.

This is just comical, and rather odd. It's like you don't understand what's being said to you, or you just can't bring yourself to deal with it. Let's get a few things straight:

One, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above the right eye and slightly behind it. That's where Humes found it when he removed it. Nobody but nobody who has seen the AP x-ray denies that the 6.5 mm object is, according to the x-ray, on the back of the skull. Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment from the frontal part of the skull.

Two, again, you can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. Both are visible. One is not the other. A 6.5 mm object is not a 7 x 2 mm object. What do you not understand about this basic truth of reality?

Every single expert panel or private expert that has examined the AP x-ray has identified the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on that x-ray. It is ludicrous to suggest that some version of the AP x-ray does not show both objects.

Three, when the ARRB specifically asked Humes about the 6.5 mm object, he said he did not see it during the autopsy. So, obviously, he did not remove it, and, equally obviously, it was not the fragment he was talking about with Specter. 

Four, Reed and Custer most certainly did not "identify it without hesitation" during the autopsy. Custer spent many hours talking with Dr. Mantik about the x-rays, and never once, not one single time, did he claim that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy.

Five, I notice you again ignored the fact that OD measurements confirm that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, and even Larry Sturdivan has conceded that the object is not, and cannot be, an FMJ bullet fragment but that it must be an artifact. The only question is, how was this artifact created? So, it is just silly and strange that you keep claiming that Humes removed it during the autopsy. Not only did Humes tell the ARRB that he did not see it during the autopsy, but we now know from hard scientific evidence that the object is not metallic.

Six, OD measurements confirm that inside the 6.5 mm object is a 2.5 mm bullet fragment. This fragment is not readily visible to the naked eye, because its image is obscured by the bright 6.5 mm object, but it is visible under high magnification, and its metallic nature is confirmed by OD measurements.

Seven, I notice you once again ignored the McDonnel fragment. Why do you keep ignoring this crucial piece of evidence? Because your theory of the shooting has no rational, plausible explanation for it? If the 6.5 mm object, as Sturdivan admits, cannot be a bullet fragment from an FMJ bullet, then the McDonnel fragment surely cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment either.

[Mitch Todd]

This is just comical, and rather odd. It's like you don't understand what's being said to you, or you just can't bring yourself to deal with it. Let's get a few things straight:

One, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above the right eye and slightly behind it. That's where Humes found it when he removed it. Nobody but nobody who has seen the AP x-ray denies that the 6.5 mm object is, according to the x-ray, on the back of the skull. Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment from the frontal part of the skull.
[...]

As anyone who looks at the x-rays will tell you, the 7x2mm fragment is against the right frontal sinus. That is, the fragment lies above and in front of the eye, not behind it. Now, CE388 shows a fragment that winds up behind and slightly above the eye, but here's the catch: The only thing in the head x-rays that would correspond to this position is the 6.5mm opacity seen in the AP x-ray.

Incoming Gish gallop in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....

[Matt Grantham]

 In front of the eye? I only know above, below and behind Maybe i am missing something

[Tim Nickerson]

One, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above the right eye and slightly behind it. That's where Humes found it when he removed it.

The 7 x 2 mm fragment was above and somewhat behind the right eye. So again, why haven't you posted the enhanced AP and lateral X-Rays with your arrows pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in them?

Nobody but nobody who has seen the AP x-ray denies that the 6.5 mm object is, according to the x-ray, on the back of the skull. Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment from the frontal part of the skull.

That is false. Humes, Reed and Custer all viewed the AP X-Ray and identified the "6.5 mm" object seen on it as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment. The fragment was not removed from the frontal skull bone. It was removed from the brain behind the right eye.

Two, again, you can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. Both are visible. One is not the other. A 6.5 mm object is not a 7 x 2 mm object. What do you not understand about this basic truth of reality?

Every single expert panel or private expert that has examined the AP x-ray has identified the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on that x-ray. It is ludicrous to suggest that some version of the AP x-ray does not show both objects.

You would go a long way towards making your case by posting the enhanced lateral X-Ray with an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in it. When will you do so? When? Seriously, just go ahead and do it. And while you're at it, in the AP view, point an arrow at the fragment that my red arrow is pointed at in the lateral view below.

Three, when the ARRB specifically asked Humes about the 6.5 mm object, he said he did not see it during the autopsy. So, obviously, he did not remove it, and, equally obviously, it was not the fragment he was talking about with Specter. 

Humes acknowledged in his ARRB testimony that the "6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that he removed. It was the fragment that he talked about with Specter.

Four, Reed and Custer most certainly did not "identify it without hesitation" during the autopsy.

I didn't say that they identified it during the autopsy. Although, they both did. I said that they identified it immediately when shown the enhanced AP X-ray.

Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night ofthe autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
-------------------------------

Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.

Five, I notice you again ignored the fact that OD measurements confirm that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, and even Larry Sturdivan has conceded that the object is not, and cannot be, an FMJ bullet fragment but that it must be an artifact. The only question is, how was this artifact created? So, it is just silly and strange that you keep claiming that Humes removed it during the autopsy. Not only did Humes tell the ARRB that he did not see it during the autopsy, but we now know from hard scientific evidence that the object is not metallic.

Six, OD measurements confirm that inside the 6.5 mm object is a 2.5 mm bullet fragment. This fragment is not readily visible to the naked eye, because its image is obscured by the bright 6.5 mm object, but it is visible under high magnification, and its metallic nature is confirmed by OD measurements.

I reject the validity of your OD measurements claims. You are claiming that precise measurements can be made in those X-Rays, when in reality the X-Rays are poor quality films taken on what was then an ancient portable X-Ray machine, which was used for the sole purpose of locating any bullets or large fragments that might have been in the body.

 

Seven, I notice you once again ignored the McDonnel fragment. Why do you keep ignoring this crucial piece of evidence?

The McDonnel fragment is the one that he describes as being "A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object]". McDonnel erroneously placed the "6.5 mm" fragment on the back of the skull. The small fragment that he described was likely the 3 x 1 mm fragment removed by Humes, which he said was in close proximity to the 7 x 2 mm fragment.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The 7 x 2 mm fragment was above and somewhat behind the right eye. So again, why haven't you posted the enhanced AP and lateral X-Rays with your arrows pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in them?

Is this some kind of joke? Both the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel identified both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6 x 5 mm object on the AP x-ray, and both panels rejected the absurd idea that the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed was really the 6.5 mm object. It is astounding that you refuse to come to grips with this fact.

You continue to argue that the 6.5 mm object is actually a bullet fragment and that Humes removed it during the autopsy, when nearly all of your fellow WC apologists now acknowledge that the object is not, and could not be, a bullet fragment. What's more, Humes said the two fragments that he removed were 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm in size. The 6.5 mm object is, well, 6.5 mm. Again, it is just amazing that you cannot face these facts.

That is false. Humes, Reed and Custer all viewed the AP X-Ray and identified the "6.5 mm" object seen on it as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment.

No, they did not, and your quotes do not actually say this. You are inferring something they did not say.

You're aware that Finck and Boswell both said they did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, right?

The fragment was not removed from the frontal skull bone. It was removed from the brain behind the right eye.

I did not say it was removed from "frontal skull bone." I said it was removed from the frontal part of the skull. I was not referring to bone but to the frontal area of the head. 

You would go a long way towards making your case by posting the enhanced lateral X-Ray with an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in it. When will you do so? When? Seriously, just go ahead and do it. And while you're at it, in the AP view, point an arrow at the fragment that my red arrow is pointed at in the lateral view below.

Really? Take a look at this graphic:



See also https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/14rbFerR0QLDHK3wD2ZRxly5ungtICTwf.

Or, look at Figure 17 on page 111 of Volume 7 of the HSCA hearings and exhibits. This is an enlargement of the enhanced AP x-ray. You can clearly see the 7 x 2 mm fragment above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf

Humes acknowledged in his ARRB testimony that the "6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that he removed.

He did no such thing. When he was asked specifically about the 6.5 mm object, he said he didn't remember seeing anything that big during the autopsy, as we'll see in a moment. Are you talking about this answer that Humes gave?:

A. Two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. They measure 7 by 2 and 3 by 1. Well, that large one that you saw in that first AP view of the skull could be the 7-by-2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI.

Is this what you're talking about? I discussed this comment in a previous reply. Humes was speaking off-the-cuff and blundering badly. He was speculating. He did not say the 6.5 object was the 7 x 2 mm fragment--he said it "could" be. But this answer contradicts what he said when he was asked about the 6.5 mm object.

Additionally, how could a 6.5 mm object be a 7 x 2 mm object? Did no one at the autopsy know how to measure? This is ludicrous.

Perhaps this graphic will help--it shows the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the front part of the skull and the small fragment on the back of the skull that should be--but is not--the corresponding lateral image of the 6.5 mm object:



See also https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/14rbFerR0QLDHK3wD2ZRxly5ungtICTwf.

Now, let's see what Humes said when he was specifically asked about the 6.5 mm object:

_______________________________________
Page 212

Q. Dr. Humes, you're now looking at X-ray 5-B No. 1. I'd like to ask you whether you have previously seen that X-ray.
A. I probably have. It's antero-posterior view of the skull and the jaw. . . .
________________________________________
Page 213

Q. Did you notice that what at least appears to be a radio-opaque fragment during the autopsy?
A. Well, I told you we received one--we retrieved one or two, and--of course, you get distortion in the X-ray as far as size goes. The ones we retrieved I didn't think were of the same size as this would lead you to believe.
Q. Did you think they were larger or smaller?
A. Smaller. Smaller, considerably smaller. I mean, these other little things would be about the size of what--I'm not sure what that is or whether that's a defect. I'm not enough of a radiologist to be able to tell you. But I don't remember retrieving anything of that size.
Q. Well, that was going to be a question, whether you had identified that as a possible fragment and then removed it.
A. Truthfully, I don't remember anything that size when I looked at these films. They all were more of the size of these others.

So let's hear no more of the false claim that Humes told the ARRB that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy. He made it clear that he neither saw nor removed a fragment as large as the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy.

And, again, you're aware that Finck and Boswell both said they did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, right?

I didn't say that they identified it during the autopsy. Although, they both did. I said that they identified it immediately when shown the enhanced AP X-ray.

Of course they identified it when shown the AP x-ray during their interviews! No kidding! As I've noted dozens of times in this forum, the 6.5 mm object is the most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray, which makes it all the more ludicrous to suggest that the object was on the x-rays at the autopsy but that everyone "missed" it.

Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night ofthe autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.

Reed was either lying or misremembering. If he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, why isn't it mentioned in the autopsy report? Why did Custer, in all his many hours of interviews with Dr. Mantik, never say that he had seen the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy? Why did Humes say he did not see it during the autopsy? Why didn't Ebersole mention the object during this testimony? Why did Ebersole refuse to discuss the 6.5 mm object when Dr. Mantik asked him about it in what had been, up to that point, a very friendly and open interview? Why did Finck and Boswell both say that they did not see the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy?

-------------------------------

Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.[/i]

Custer obviously goofed. The Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel said it was on the rear outer table of the skull, and they cited it as evidence of their proposed cowlick entry site.

Dr. McDonnel, Dr. Lattimer, Dr. Davis, and the three ARRB forensic experts likewise placed the object on the back of the skull. Dr. Davis, one of the HSCA's forensic consultants, said the following about the 6.5 mm object's location:

There is a metallic fragment about 9 or 1O cm above the external occipital protuberance, which metallic fragment is apparently imbedded in the outer table of the skull. On the frontal view, this metallic fragment is located 2 .5 cm to the right of midline, and on the lateral view, it is approximately 3-4 cm above the lambda. (David O. Davis, "Examination of JFK Autopsy X-Rays," 7 HSCA 222, Addendum D)

I'm assuming you understand that Dr. Davis and Dr. McDonnel were not on the HSCA medical panel but were experts consulted by that panel. They were asked to review the autopsy x-rays and to submit reports on them.

I reject the validity of your OD measurements claims. You are claiming that precise measurements can be made in those X-Rays, when in reality the X-Rays are poor quality films taken on what was then an ancient portable X-Ray machine, which was used for the sole purpose of locating any bullets or large fragments that might have been in the body.

Ah, so here we have it! You reject the established science of optical density measurement on x-rays because the results of two independent OD analyses of the autopsy skull x-rays prove that those x-rays have been altered. I'm guessing you don't care that two scientists independently did OD measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays and that their measurements match almost perfectly. I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Arthur Haas, who was the chief of Kodak's Department of Medical Physics at the time, proof-read Dr. Mantik's first OD study on the x-rays. I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Greg Henkelmann, a radiation oncologist and physicist, after reviewing Dr. Mantik's two most recent OD analyses of the autopsy x-rays, says that "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology." I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Mantik's OD measurements were confirmed by Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who also did OD measurements on JFK's premortem x-rays in Boston.

As for your claim that the autopsy x-rays are "poor quality films taken on what was then an ancient portable X-Ray machine," even Dr. Ebersole said that the GE 250 x-ray machine that they used was good enough for their purpose, which was to locate bullet fragments. Dr. Chesser notes the following about the quality of the autopsy skull x-rays:

In the HSCA report you’ll find this very blurred image of the original right lateral skull x-ray (actually the inventory lists two left lateral skull x-rays). Looking at this image in the report would make you think that this x-ray is in horrible condition, and that the anterior half of the skull was so dim that no useful information could be obtained. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The actual original x-rays are in excellent condition, showing only minor aging, and this blurred copy doesn’t represent the original film well. This blurred image is very misleading – the purported reason for the need to enhance the x-rays was the poor image quality – that simply isn’t true. (https://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)

The McDonnel fragment is the one that he describes as being "A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object]". McDonnel erroneously placed the "6.5 mm" fragment on the back of the skull. The small fragment that he described was likely the 3 x 1 mm fragment removed by Humes, which he said was in close proximity to the 7 x 2 mm fragment.

LOL! Oh, so McDonnel "erroneously" placed the 6.5 mm object on the back of the skull?! Really?! Well, again, the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel also placed the object on the back of the skull! Dr. Davis placed the object on the back of the skull. The ARRB's three forensic experts placed the object on the back of the skull. Even Dr. Lattimer placed the object in the back of the skull! What in the world are you talking about? Do you understand how silly your claims are here?

No, the McDonnel fragment is not the 3 x 1 mm fragment. McDonnel specified that the fragment was "between the galea and the outer table of the skull."

And what about the 2.5 mm fragment that's inside the image of the 6.5 mm object? This fragment is visible under high magnification and its metallic nature has been confirmed by OD measurements. Oh, that's right: you reject the established science of OD measurement.

Are you ever going to deal with Larry Sturdivan's observations on why the 6.5 mm object simply cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment? His compelling case on this issue is the reason that nearly all of your fellow WC apologists now acknowledge that the object is an artifact. The only issue is whether the artifact was created accidentally or intentionally. Yet, here you are, apparently caught in a time warp, still arguing that the object is a bullet fragment.

[Tim Nickerson]

Is this some kind of joke? Both the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel identified both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6 x 5 mm object on the AP x-ray, and both panels rejected the absurd idea that the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed was really the 6.5 mm object. It is astounding that you refuse to come to grips with this fact.

Is that the same HSCA medical panel that confirmed that the autopsy X-Rays were authentic and unaltered?

You continue to argue that the 6.5 mm object is actually a bullet fragment and that Humes removed it during the autopsy, when nearly all of your fellow WC apologists now acknowledge that the object is not, and could not be, a bullet fragment. What's more, Humes said the two fragments that he removed were 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm in size. The 6.5 mm object is, well, 6.5 mm. Again, it is just amazing that you cannot face these facts.

Humes never gave any measurements in half mm. He always rounded off to the nearest mm.

No, they did not, and your quotes do not actually say this. You are inferring something they did not say.

Reed's and Custer's words speak for themselves.

Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night of the autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
..........
Gunn: If you recall, in the first X-ray that you looked at, we discussed a semi-circular item that looked -
Reed: The artifact?
Gunn: No, not the artifact. I think you identified it as a bullet fragment. Are you able to identify that bullet fragment in the lateral view?
Reed: Yes, I can.
Gunn: Where is that?
Reed: In the frontal lobe of the skull.
Gunn: And you are pointing to -
Reed: The front. Right above the suptaorbital rim of this right occiput - of his right orbit.
Gunn: You don’t mean “occiput” -
Reed: No, scratch that. Of the orbit. Supraorbital rim. It is right impregnated in there.

=======================================

Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.

The 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from the right orbital ridge.

You're aware that Finck and Boswell both said they did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, right?

Boswell initially said that he didn't recognize it but later allowed that it could very well be the fragment. Finck did not say that he did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy. He said that he didn't remember seeing it but added "But that doesn't mean I didn't see it. It means I don't recall."

I did not say it was removed from "frontal skull bone." I said it was removed from the frontal part of the skull. I was not referring to bone but to the frontal area of the head. 

There is a fragment seen in the lateral view that looks to be in the frontal skull bone. I just wanted to be sure that you were not claiming that it is the one removed by Humes.

Really? Take a look at this graphic:



See also https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/14rbFerR0QLDHK3wD2ZRxly5ungtICTwf.

Or, look at Figure 17 on page 111 of Volume 7 of the HSCA hearings and exhibits. This is an enlargement of the enhanced AP x-ray. You can clearly see the 7 x 2 mm fragment above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf

Perhaps this graphic will help:



See also https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/14rbFerR0QLDHK3wD2ZRxly5ungtICTwf.

Wait. What? You are claiming that the fragment imbedded in the forehead was the 7 x 2 mm fragment removed by Humes? Am I understanding you correctly? In what world could that reasonably be considered to be somewhat behind the right eye?

BTW, your google.com links are not working.

Now, let's see what Humes said when he was specifically asked about the 6.5 mm object:

As I said, that's Humes basically acknowledging that the '6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2mm fragment that he removed. It wasn't a definitive statement but it was close enough.

Additionally, how could a 6.5 mm object be a 7 x 2 mm object? Did no one at the autopsy know how to measure? This is ludicrous.

Again, Humes never gave any measurements in half mm. He always rounded off to the nearest mm. Or approximated anyway.

Of course they identified it when shown the AP x-ray during their interviews! No kidding! As I've noted dozens of times in this forum, the 6.5 mm object is the most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray, which makes it all the more ludicrous to suggest that the object was on the x-rays at the autopsy but that everyone "missed" it.

They didn't miss it at the autopsy.

Reed was either lying or misremembering. If he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, why isn't it mentioned in the autopsy report? Why did Custer, in all his many hours of interviews with Dr. Mantik, never say that he had seen the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy? Why did Humes say he did not see it during the autopsy? Why didn't Ebersole mention the object during this testimony? Why did Ebersole refuse to discuss the 6.5 mm objecen Dr. Mantik asked him about it in what had been, up to that point, a very friendly and open interview? Why did Finck and Boswell both say that they did not see the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy?

Ahh, so Reed was lying eh? LOL! The 6.5 mm fragment is mentioned in the autopsy report. It's the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed from behind the right eye. Why do you ask the same questions multiple times in a single post?

Custer obviously goofed.

LOL!

Ah, so here we have it! You reject the established science of optical density measurement on x-rays because the results of two independent OD analyses of the autopsy skull x-rays prove that those x-rays have been altered. I'm guessing you don't care that two scientists independently did OD measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays and that their measurements match almost perfectly. I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Arthur Haas, who was the chief of Kodak's Department of Medical Physics at the time, proof-read Dr. Mantik's first OD study on the x-rays. I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Greg Henkelmann, a radiation oncologist and physicist, after reviewing Dr. Mantik's two most recent OD analyses of the autopsy x-rays, says that "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology." I'm guessing you don't care that Dr. Mantik's OD measurements were confirmed by Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who also did OD measurements on JFK's premortem x-rays in Boston.

I reject Mantik's use of OD analysis on those X-Rays and his conclusion drawn from that use. His whole analysis is flawed because he is working under the false premise that the 6.5 mm object was on the back of the skull.

As for your claim that the autopsy x-rays are "poor quality films taken on what was then an ancient portable X-Ray machine," even Dr. Ebersole said that the GE 250 x-ray machine that they used was good enough for their purpose, which was to locate bullet fragments.

Which is exactly what I said.

LOL! Oh, so McDonnel "erroneously" placed the 6.5 mm object on the back of the skull?! Really?

Really.

Well, again, the Clark Panel and the HSCA medical panel also placed the object on the back of the skull! Dr. Davis placed the object on the back of the skull. The ARRB's three forensic experts placed the object on the back of the skull. Even Dr. Lattimer placed the object in the back of the skull! What in the world are you talking about? Do you understand how silly your claims are here?

They were all wrong.

"the location in terms of distance from vertex of the round fragment corresponds exactly with a bullet fragment located at the front of the skull at the "height" of the upper part of the frontal sinus. This corresponds, in the frontal x-ray, to the circular fragment located at the level of the right supraorbital ridge. Using an optical micrometer, the cross-sectional diameter of these two fragments is identical. (In the author's measurements, both fragments were measured to be 7mm in diameter; the Panel, using better quality material, measured the circular fragment as 6.5mm in diameter and Is almost certainly more accurate.) There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow.
The sole rationale for this contention by the Panel is that a sharp radiopaque image usually represents an object close to the x-ray film. For example, when Humes met with the Panel, the following exchange occurred (HSCA 7:251):

DR. PETTY. Now, may I ask you one other question on this X-ray, Dr. Humes.
Here is a view taken, I assume, with the radiation point above the face and the film behind the back of the head.
DR. HUMES. Not being a radiologist, I presume that.
DR. PETTY. If that's true, then the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen In the lateral view —
DR. HUMES. Up by the eyebrow.
DR. PETTY. No. Up by the — in the back of the skull.

The anatomical evidence is unequivocal; however, for the sake of completeness, it may be pointed out that the clarity of a radiographic image, assuming sufficient beam intensity, depends upon the coherence ("sharpness") of the radiopaque image on the photographic emulsion. Physical factors that determine coherence include radiopaqueness (100% for a metal fragment), sharpness of the edge (minimizing beam scatter), and location relative to the radiation beam (minimizing defraction). In general, distance will correlate with clarity (the greater the distance to the emulsion, the greater the displacement due to scatter) but it is not causal. A bullet fragment in cross-section and located near the center of the radiation beam would be expected to produce an image such as that observed in the frontal x-ray. The essential points, however, are: (1) It is anatomically impossible that the "high" fragment is the circular fragment in the frontal x-ray and (2) The round fragment correlates exactly in size and location to the fragment in the lateral x-ray immediately superior to the frontal sinus.
There is a major bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. The evidence is unequivocal and, without qualification, the Panel is in error in equating the round fragment in the frontal x-ray with the "high" fragment in the lateral x-ray." -- Joseph N Riley, Ph.D. in Neuroscience, specializing in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology.

https://archive.org/details/nsia-RileyJosephN/nsia-RileyJosephN/Riley%20Joseph%20N%2005/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater

No, the McDonnel fragment is not the 3 x 1 mm fragment.

Yes it is.

And what about the 2.5 mm fragment that's inside the image of the 6.5 mm object? This fragment is visible under high magnification and its metallic nature has been confirmed by OD measurements. Oh, that's right: you reject the established science of OD measurement.

Not sure. Maybe that's the 3 x 1 mm fragment.

Are you ever going to deal with Larry Sturdivan's observations on why the 6.5 mm object simply cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment? His compelling case on this issue is the reason that nearly all of your fellow WC apologists now acknowledge that the object is an artifact. The only issue is whether the artifact was created accidentally or intentionally. Yet, here you are, apparently caught in a time warp, still arguing that the object is a bullet fragment.

Sturdivan said that it could not be a FMJ bullet fragment on the back of the skull. He's right. It wasn't on the back of the skull. It was above and somewhat behind the right eye.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Is that the same HSCA medical panel that confirmed that the autopsy X-Rays were authentic and unaltered?

Humes never gave any measurements in half mm. He always rounded off to the nearest mm.

Reed's and Custer's words speak for themselves.

[SNIP]

The 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from the right orbital ridge.

Boswell initially said that he didn't recognize it but later allowed that it could very well be the fragment. Finck did not say that he did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy. He said that he didn't remember seeing it but added "But that doesn't mean I didn't see it. It means I don't recall."

There is a fragment seen in the lateral view that looks to be in the frontal skull bone. I just wanted to be sure that you were not claiming that it is the one removed by Humes.

Wait. What? You are claiming that the fragment imbedded in the forehead was the 7 x 2 mm fragment removed by Humes? Am I understanding you correctly? In what world could that reasonably be considered to be somewhat behind the right eye?

BTW, your google.com links are not working.

As I said, that's Humes basically acknowledging that the '6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2mm fragment that he removed. It wasn't a definitive statement but it was close enough.

Again, Humes never gave any measurements in half mm. He always rounded off to the nearest mm. Or approximated anyway.

They didn't miss it at the autopsy.

Ahh, so Reed was lying eh? LOL! The 6.5 mm fragment is mentioned in the autopsy report. It's the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed from behind the right eye. Why do you ask the same questions multiple times in a single post?

LOL!

I reject Mantik's use of OD analysis on those X-Rays and his conclusion drawn from that use. His whole analysis is flawed because he is working under the false premise that the 6.5 mm object was on the back of the skull.
 
Which is exactly what I said.

Really.

They were all wrong.

[Long quote from one of Dr. Joseph Riley's articles SNIPPED]

Yes it is.

Not sure. Maybe that's the 3 x 1 mm fragment.

Sturdivan said that it could not be a FMJ bullet fragment on the back of the skull. He's right. It wasn't on the back of the skull. It was above and somewhat behind the right eye.

Okay, this will be my last reply to you. I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense and evasion. A few final thoughts:

Virtually no one accepts everything that the HSCA medical panel said, but you can't even accept something as basic as the location of the 6.5 mm object, even though the HSCA placement of the object has been confirmed by all the experts who have examined the x-rays, with the sole exception of Dr. Joseph Riley and retired x-ray technician Jerrol Custer.

You pounce on Riley's placement of the 6.5 mm object, but I'm guessing you do not accept Riley's finding that two bullets struck JFK in the head, right? Here are two of Riley's articles in which he makes the case that two bullets must have struck Kennedy's skull:

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf

And, again, Custer did not do an in-depth analysis of the skull x-rays. He gave his opinion about the location of the 6.5 mm object while being shown the skull x-rays during his ARRB interview. An opinion given under such circumstances can hardly be considered a conclusion that was based on careful, prolonged analysis.

But, nah, you'll take Custer's off-the-cuff placement and Riley's placement over the placement of

-- The four members of the Clark Panel (Dr. Carnes, Dr. Fisher, Dr. Morgan, and Dr. Moritz)
-- The nine members of the HSCA medical panel (Dr. Weston, Dr. Loquvam, Dr. Coe, Dr. Petty, Dr. Spitz, Dr. Rose, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Baden, and Dr. Joseph Davis)
-- Dr. David O. Davis (not to be confused with HSCA medical panel member Dr. Joseph Davis)
-- Dr. Lattimer
-- Dr. McDonnel
-- Dr. Chesser
-- Dr. Aguilar
-- Dr. Henkelmann
-- Dr. Mantik
-- The three ARRB forensic experts (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, and Dr. Kirschner)

Your rejection of the OD evidence is beyond lame. It smacks of deliberate evasion and a conscious refusal to deal honestly with data. By the way, the location of the 6.5 mm object has nothing to do with its OD measurements, so it is downright silly for you to say that you reject Dr. Mantik's peer-reviewed OD analysis because you think he's wrong about the location of the 6.5 mm object.

You once again quoted Reed and Custer to the effect that they saw the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, but Custer's comment, as I've discussed at length, does not necessarily support your argument. Only Reed unequivocally claimed to have seen the object on the x-rays during the autopsy. Again, in all of his many hours of discussions with Dr. Mantik about the x-rays, Custer never once claimed that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy.

There's also the fact that (1) the autopsy report makes no mention of the 6.5 mm object; (2) Dr. Ebersole said nothing about the object in his HSCA testimony; (3) Dr. Ebersole refused to discuss the object when Dr. Mantik asked him about it; (4) Dr. Finck said nothing about the object in his detailed report on the autopsy to General Blumberg, which he wrote less than two years after the autopsy when the events of that night would still have been fresh in his mind; and (5) there is no plausible, credible explanation for how the object/artifact could have been accidentally created on the x-rays during the autopsy.

Your twisting of Sturdivan's observations on the 6.5 mm object is embarrassing. Sturdivan said that the 6.5 mm object, the one that you absurdly claim is the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed, is not, and cannot be, an FMJ bullet fragment. He says the object is an artifact that was accidentally created on the AP x-ray during the autopsy. This means there was no bullet fragment in that location in the skull. So how could Humes have removed it How could he have removed something that was not there?

You are misrepresenting what Humes, Finck, and Boswell said about the 6.5 mm object. I already documented that Humes plainly and clearly stated, when asked specifically about the object, that it was much larger than any of the fragments that he removed and that he did not recall seeing such a large fragment when he examined the x-rays during the autopsy. That's what he said, in plain English, but you refuse to admit it.

In the face of the autopsy doctors' statements that they did not recall seeing the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, you cling to the fact that two of them added the caveat that they may have seen it but no longer remembered seeing it. But, if they saw it during the autopsy, why does the autopsy report say nothing about it? Why didn't Ebersole say anything about it? Why didn't Finck mention it in his detailed report on the autopsy to General Blumberg, which he wrote less than two years after the autopsy when the events of that night would still have been fresh in his mind? Why didn't Custer mention having seen it in any of his many interviews with Dr. Mantik? (Mantik and Custer developed a friendship and discussed the autopsy x-rays on many occasions.)

I documented that McDonnel noted that the small fragment that he identified was in the back of the skull "between the galea and the outer table of the skull," and that it was to the left of the 6.5 object. But, you still refuse to deal with this fragment in a rational manner and instead make the absurd argument that it is either the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes removed from the frontal area of the head or the 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. This is impossible. The McDonnel fragment is between the galea and the rear outer table of the skull, and its location does not overlap the location of the 6.5 mm object--it is to the left of the object.

You can't deal rationally with the McDonnel fragment because that fragment can only be a ricochet fragment from a missed shot that the lone-gunman theory cannot credibly explain.

Finally, your refusal to admit that the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both visible on the AP x-ray is nothing short of astonishing. In all my years of online discussions, I've never seen such an amazing refusal to acknowledge such an undeniable fact. I showed you concrete proof that the AP x-ray shows the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object, and that the 7 x 2 mm fragment is above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object. Yet, you still refuse to accept this reality and offer only lame, comical evasions to avoid dealing with this self-evident fact.