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

[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.

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

You claim that the fragment that appears to be imbedded in the forehead in the lateral view was the 7 x 2 mm fragment removed by Humes. But you fail to reconcile that with the fact that the 7 x 2mm  fragment removed by Humes was somewhat behind the right eye. Behind the right orbit.


You've been cornered and can't explain your way out. So, you've decided to bail. Why not be honest here and just admit your conundrum? The 6.5 mm circular object is the 7 x 2 mm fragment removed by Humes. The autopsy X-rays are authentic and unaltered. No Radiologist or film analysis expert that has viewed the X-Rays has concluded otherwise. That circular opaque object would not have gone unnoticed at the time of the autopsy. Both of the X-Ray techs who took the X-Rays stated that the circular opaque object seen in the AP view was a metallic fragment that was located in the right orbital ridge.

In the lateral view, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is visible just above and behind the right eye. Credit to Pat Speers. I highly recommend Pat's chapter 18b, which can be found on his home page. Actually, all of his sections pertaining to the head wounds are worth reading.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Speaking of Jerrol Custer, we should remember that Custer told Dr. Mantik and the ARRB that the morning after the assassination, he was called into the radiology suite by Dr. Ebersole and was told to tape some metallic fragments to skull bones. These, explained Custer, were then to be taken to a private room and x-rayed with the same machine, at the same distance, that he used the night before during the autopsy. Custer added that Ebersole said these x-rays would be used to make a bust of JFK:

I was told by Dr. Ebersole that they were to be taken to make measurements, to make a bust of President Kennedy. . . . He gave me three or four different metal fragments, varying in size. And he asked me to tape them to the bone. . . .(ARRB interview transcript, 10/28/97, p. 144)

Ebersole told the HSCA that several weeks after the autopsy, he was summoned to the White House by the Secret Service (who controlled the autopsy materials) to examine the skull x-rays. Ebersole said that the purpose of his visit was to assist in preparing a bust of JFK, and that while there he drew a straight pencil line obliquely across one of the lateral x-rays (HSCA interview transcript, 3/11/78, pp. 16-18).

Obviously, taping bullet fragments to skull bones and then x-raying the bones had nothing to do with making a bust of JFK. Ultimately, the plotters obviously opted not to use these x-rays because they realized that the autopsy x-rays could be altered via darkroom techniques that would be extremely hard to detect at the time.

I left out a few names of experts who place the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head:

-- Dr. Randy Robertson (radiologist)
-- Dr. Larry Sturdivan (HSCA wound ballistics consultant)
-- Kathy Cunningham (RN)
-- Dr. Jon K. Lattimer (MD, son of Dr. John Lattimer)
-- Dr. Eric Haubner (MD)

Dr. Aguilar and RN Cunningham explain the appearance of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays in relation to its location:

It is visible on the “anterior-posterior” X-ray as a very dense, 6.5-mm object that sits squarely in the middle of the right bony eye socket, or “orbit.”

This AP (Anterior-Posterior) X-Ray from JFK's autopsy shows a 6.5 mm notched circular object just left of the nose; this is alleged to be a cross-sectional fragment of the bullet which struck the head. Several implausibilities surround this object, as noted herein.

Of course, the object is not really “in” the eye socket; it is in the rear of the skull. It just “projects” through the orbit on the X-ray which “sees” through all the layers at once. (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm)

As most here know, before Dr. Mantik's optical density analysis of the 6.5 mm object, and before Dr. Sturdivan's wound ballistics analysis of the 6.5 mm object, the position stated by government panels and by WC apologists was that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment that was scraped off an FMJ bullet as it entered the alleged cowlick entry site in the back of the head.

But now that has all been exploded. The ARRB forensic experts debunked the cowlick entry site. Private experts, including Sturdivan, have likewise debunked it. WC apologists ignored Dr. Mantik's OD measurements, even after Dr. Chesser confirmed them with his own OD measurements. However, after Sturdivan demolished the idea that the 6.5 mm object was a sheared-off fragment from an FMJ bullet and explained why the object must be an artifact, WC apologists soon began to adopt Sturdivan's position.

The 6.5 mm object decimates the lone-gunman theory. On top of this, the McDonnel fragment and the 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object pose impossible problems for the lone-gunman theory, since they could not have come from an FMJ bullet, and since they are not near an entry point. They can only be ricochet fragments.

[Jerry Organ]

As most here know, before Dr. Mantik's optical density analysis of the 6.5 mm object, and before Dr. Sturdivan's wound ballistics analysis of the 6.5 mm object, the position stated by government panels and by WC apologists was that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment that was scraped off an FMJ bullet as it entered the alleged cowlick entry site in the back of the head.

Who--other than a small group in the 1970s--said it was definitively a scraped-off slice of bullet? I can't find where LNers like Moore, Posner, Savage, or Bugliosi promote such a claim.

Quack Mantik claims the Clark Panel "described an apparent 6.5 mm cross section of a bullet fragment." Wrong. The Clark Panel said the object was, in their view, metallic, "round and measures 6.5 mm in diameter". One of the first suggestions that it was a bullet shaving came from a critic, Harold Roffman, in his 1976 book "Presumed Guilty":

    "The bullet from which was shaved this substantial fragment
     upon entrance could not have been covered with a hard metal
     jacket, such as copper alloy".

But now that has all been exploded. The ARRB forensic experts debunked the cowlick entry site.

What they actually said was they could find NO entry into the skull. So that rules out an EOP entry site. The ARRB was largely staffed by those with a Conspiracy-Theorist bias, deluded by the "JFK" movie that was out a few years before. The "cowlick" entry would have to be plain-as-day for the ARRB "experts" to agree to it. Other experts, however, who were braver and had no bias, have stated there was an entry wound in the "cowlick" site.

("Cowlick" is just an expression. Kennedy's cowlick was on his left side and was not struck by a bullet. The so-called "cowlick" entry wound was at-or-near the level of the cowlick.)

[John Iacoletti]

Like the WC, and the Clark panel, and even the HSCA weren’t staffed by people with a “Oswald did it” bias…

[Michael T. Griffith]

A few follow-up points:

-- First off, I neglected to include x-ray technician Edward Reed in the list of experts who’ve placed the 6.5 mm object in the front of the skull—specifically, just above the right supraorbital rim (i.e., just above the right eye). With Reed added to the list, that makes three experts who’ve placed the object in the front of the head vs. 27 experts who’ve placed it in the back of the head (including the Clark Panel, the HSCA medical panel, and the ARRB forensic experts).

-- The “Humes rounded up” argument will not work. A 7 x 2 mm object cannot be a circular 6.5 mm object. The 7 refers to the fragment’s length, while the 2 refers to its width. We can see on the AP x-ray that the 7 x 2 mm fragment is slightly longer than the 6.5 mm object. And, obviously, the 6.5 mm object is not 2 mm wide—it is 6.5 mm wide, since it is circular. There is no way that even a first-year medical student would have described the circular 6.5 mm object as a fragment that was 7 mm long and 2 mm wide.

-- In the autopsy report, Humes said that the 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed “from the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex” (Autopsy report, p. 4). In his WC testimony, Humes said the 7 x 2 mm fragment was removed from “above and somewhat behind the President’s eye” (2 H 354).

-- Reed’s ARRB testimony is worth revisiting. Yes, Reed said that he saw the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy. He assumed it was a bullet fragment. However, Reed also said that he could identify the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-ray and that it is just above the right supraorbital rim on the lateral x-ray (ARRB interview transcript, 10/21/97, p. 89)! Really?!

After studying the AP and lateral skull x-rays for many hours over the course of two days, Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB forensic radiologist, saw no such object in the area of the right orbit on the lateral x-ray, nor did the two other ARRB forensic experts. Likewise, 23 other experts who’ve studied the x-rays have not seen the 6.5 mm object in the right-orbital area on the lateral x-ray.

-- The tiny minority of WC apologists who argue that the 6.5 mm object is just above/in the right supraorbital ridge do not realize they are creating an atomic bomb that blows up the lone-gunman theory. How in the world could an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window have deposited a 6.5 mm fragment just above and behind the right eye socket after entering the skull through either of the entry holes posited by the lone-gunman scenario?

We now know that the cowlick entry site is bogus, and most WC apologists follow Sturdivan in rejecting it. This site is nearly 4 inches higher than the site described in the autopsy report. The cowlick site was posited to explain the high fragment trail seen on the lateral x-ray; this trail consists of a cloud of fragments in the right-frontal region and then tails off upward toward the back of the head (although it does not actually reach the cowlick). A 6.5 mm fragment going from the cowlick entry site to the bone behind the right eyebrow would have torn a sizable cavity through the brain and would have done far more damage to the brain than we see in the extant autopsy photos of the brain.

A 6.5 mm fragment going from the EOP entry site to the bone behind the right eyebrow (i.e., the right supraorbital ridge) would have done even more damage. For that matter, as Dr. Loquvam pointed out to Finck, a bullet entering at the EOP site would have had to tear through the cerebellum, but the extant autopsy photos of the brain show no damage to the cerebellum. Plus, there is not even the semblance of a fragment trail from the EOP to the right-orbital region on the extant autopsy skull x-rays.

Dr. Riley’s main point in his article “The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries” is that the lone-gunman shooting scenario cannot account for the 6.5 mm object/fragment if it is indeed located in the right-orbital region and also for the brain damage that JFK suffered. Yes, Dr. Riley places the 6.5 mm object in “the right supraorbital ridge,” but then he points out that the single head shot of the lone-gunman theory cannot explain this object and the damage seen on the skull x-rays and in the autopsy photos of the brain, whether one uses the cowlick entry site or the EOP entry site:

If the fragment is embedded in the supraorbital ridge, it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain how a bullet that has a trajectory almost tangential to the skull [required by the assumption that the bullet came from the sixth-floor window] could fragment extensively in the superficial brain layers, have major portions of the bullet exit (based on fragments recovered in the limousine), yet a large fragment (which retains a circular profile) deviates down to penetrate the supraorbital ridge but no fragments are distributed along the pathway.

However, there is an even more compelling reason to reject the Panel's [the HSCA medical panel’s] conclusions. The Panel describes the subcortical damage adequately (see previous description) but provides no analysis or explanation of how such wounds could be produced. If a bullet entered where the Panel places the entrance wound, it is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds. A description of the trajectory necessary to produce the subcortical wounds borders on parody. . . .

Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound [the cowlick site] cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report.

The occipital entrance wound is consistent with the subcortical wounds. As described previously, the subcortical damage requires an entrance and exit wound in the occipital bone and the right supraorbital ridge due to the linear nature of the damage. . . .

However, this entrance site and trajectory cannot account for the cortical damage and cannot be the wound inflicted at frames 312/313 of the Zapruder film.

First, there is no evidence of continuity between the cortical and subcortical wounds. There is no evidence of significant fragmentation along the subcortical trajectory and no anatomical or radiographic evidence of a path from the subcortical trajectory and the damaged cortex. In addition, as described previously, the distribution of fragments in the cortex is superficial, without evidence of subcortical penetration, and the pattern of distribution is inconsistent with a subcortical penetration.

Second, the trajectory cannot be reconciled with the head shot shown in the Zapruder film. The HSCA conducted an extensive trajectory analysis based on the position of the head as seen in frame 312. Using the "high" entrance wound, the HSCA demonstrated that the trajectory could be aligned with "the southeast sixth story window of the Texas School Book Depository" (HSCA 6:62). However, the trajectory of the occipital entrance wound differs significantly from the trajectory of the "high" entrance wound. The trajectories differ a minimum of 18 degrees in the horizontal plane and 5 degrees in the vertical plane. Even a cursory plotting of these differences in HSCA figures 11-11 and 11-12 (HSCA 6:41-42) demonstrates that the occipital entrance wound and associated subcortical wounds could not have been caused by a shot from the Texas School Book Depository corresponding to Zapruder frame 312/313.

An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area [the cowlick site], as determined by the HSCA Forensics Panel, may account for the cortical damage but cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage. The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy's head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet. (“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, 2004, pp. 13-15, available at http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf)

So, any lone-gunman theorist who insists on believing in the placement of the 6.5 mm object in the right-orbital ridge must face the fact that their version of the shooting cannot explain how their alleged single bullet to the head did the brain damage seen in the skull x-rays and also deposited the 6.5 mm object/fragment in the right-orbital ridge.

-- One of the ARRB forensic experts, Dr. Ubelaker, concluded that the photos of the back of the head support the EOP entry site. Said Dr. Ubelaker,

The red spot in the upper part of the photo near the end of the ruler does not really look like a wound. The red spot looks like a spot of blood--it could be a wound but probably isn't. The white spot which is much lower in the picture near the hairline could be a flesh wound and is much more likely to be a flesh wound than the red spot higher in the photograph. (ARRB interview report, 1/26/96, p. 1)

Interestingly, this is exactly what the three autopsy doctors argued when the HSCA medical panel tried to pressure them to repudiate the EOP entry site and to endorse the cowlick entry site.


All three ARRB forensic experts agreed that the skull x-rays contain no evidence of a cowlick entry site.

Two of the HSCA's radiological consultants, to their credit, raised issues about the cowlick entry site, but Baden ignored their observations. For those consultants to even mildly question the cowlick site was a rather surprising action. At the time of the HSCA, because of the Clark Panel's report, it was widely believed, even by some critics, that the autopsy doctors had badly mislocated the rear head entry wound, and that the wound was located in the cowlick.

-- Organ's argument that Dr. Mantik mischaracterized the Clark Panel's conclusion about the 6.5 mm object is downright idiotic. Dr. Mantik did not say that the Clark Panel said the fragment was a sheared-off fragment, if you read his statement with any care. He was making the point that for years the 6.5 mm object "described" in the Clark Panel's report was widely believed to be a sheared-off bullet fragment, hence his use of the verb "described" and the adjective "apparent." If I say you "described" an object that appears to be a fragment, I am not necessarily saying that you said it was a fragment. Saying that a third party "described" an object that "appears" to be X is frequently done as a way to indicate that the third party did not actually say the object was X. This is English 101 stuff.

In 1979, HSCA experts theorized that the 6.5 mm object was a sheared-off bullet fragment from an FMJ bullet. Dr. Lattimer made the same claim in 1972.

Until the early 2000s, every WC apologist who commented on this issue assumed that the 6.5 mm object identified by the Clark Panel was a sheared-off fragment from an FMJ bullet. I personally had many online exchanges with WC apologists who doggedly claimed that the object had been sheared off the alleged 6.5 mm head-shot bullet as it entered the skull, and they cited the HSCA and Lattimer as support for their claim.

Thus, it is both lame and dishonest for Organ to cite Howard Roffman's 1976 critique of this absurd theory, when Organ knows, or should know, that back then everyone assumed the object was a fragment--the only issue was whether it came from an FMJ bullet or from some other kind of bullet. (By the way, Roffman's book was first published in 1975, not 1976.)

Roffman, citing authorities on wound ballistics, correctly pointed out that no FMJ bullet could have had metal scraped from it as it entered the skull, and that only a lead bullet could have deposited a sheared-off fragment on the outer table of the skull (Presumed Guilty, pp. 114-117). Many other WC critics, citing considerable forensic and wound ballistics evidence, made the same point. However, WC apologists would not admit that the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet until one of their own leading experts, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, acknowledged this fact in his 2005 book.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Since the WC apologists in this thread have fallen silent, now is a good time for more follow-up points.

Notice how the WC apologists in this thread are avoiding the key issues. They are doing this because they have no good answers for them.

Lone-gunman theorists have no credible explanation for the McDonnel fragment and for the genuine 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. So far, I’ve seen three lone-gunman explanations. Two of them are so far-fetched and bizarre that they really do not deserve comment. The third one is not quite as far-fetched and bizarre but is still strained and implausible. But, let’s take a look at them anyway.

The first theory, proposed by Tim Nickerson, is that the 2.5 mm fragment “may be” the 3 x 1 mm fragment mentioned in the autopsy report. Nickerson obviously has never bothered to read any of Dr. Mantik’s research on the subject. If he had read that research, he would know that the genuine fragment inside the 6.5 object is 6.3 mm long (some might say 6.4 mm) and 2.5 mm wide, i.e., 6.3 x 2.5 mm. I’ve been referring to this fragment as “the 2.5 mm fragment” for convenience, but its length and width are 6.3 x 2.5 mm. Like all genuine fragments, it is irregular in shape. For most of its length, it is 2 mm wide, and part of its right side is jagged with slivers jutting out here and there. So, no, there’s no way that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes mentioned and removed.

The second theory also comes from Tim Nickerson. This theory is that the McDonnel fragment is Humes’s 3 x 1 mm fragment! Now, if you’re thinking, “wait a minute, how could the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment both be the 3 x 1 mm fragment?”, that’s a very good question. Anyway, let’s continue.

For one thing, the McDonnel fragment, as McDonnel himself noted, is at the back of the skull "between the galea and the outer table of the skull” and is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays. Second, and most important, the McDonnel fragment is very small—it is less than 1 mm in length and width. Therefore, it is absurd to believe that anyone at the autopsy could have mistaken this tiny fragment for the 3 x 1 mm fragment.

Just so no one thinks I am misrepresenting what Nickerson has said, let me quote his own words from one of my recent exchanges with him:

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

NICKERSON: Yes it is.

ME: 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.

NICKERSON: Not sure. Maybe that's the 3 x 1 mm fragment. https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg141831.html#msg141831)

The third theory is that all the fragments that were deposited on the back of JFK’s head came from a ricochet shot that first hit the guy rod of the traffic signal near the oak tree on Elm Street. This theory at least acknowledges the fact that the back-of-head fragments could only be ricochet fragments, just as Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue. However, this theory has several severe problems.

For starters, this theory requires us to believe that the sixth-floor gunman either (1) fired a shot when he could see that the shot might hit the traffic signal’s horizontal support pole or its guy rod or (2) fired a shot before JFK passed under the traffic signal but missed so badly that the bullet hit the guy rod (it could also have hit the horizontal support pole). Either of these scenarios strains credulity.

Another problem with this theory is that any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired at around Z140, which would have forced the gunman to fire at a very steep downward angle, almost straight down. The traffic signal was only about 10-15 feet from the oak tree, as we can see in any number of photos of Dealey Plaza, including some of the photos taken of the Secret Service reenactment; therefore, a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod (or its horizontal support pole) could only have been fired at around Z140. It is highly unlikely that any gunman in the sixth-floor window would have taken a shot when he would have had to fire at such an awkwardly sharp downward angle. (Keep in mind, too, that the sixth-floor gunman’s view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210.)

How steep of a downward angle are we talking about for a Z140 shot? Well, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161, 21 frames and 1.1 seconds after Z140, would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171). Therefore, a shot fired at around Z140 would have required an even steeper downward angle—again, almost straight down.

And then there’s the problem of the trajectory of ricochet fragments from the traffic signal to the back of JFK’s head. In Z140, JFK is facing to his right while waving at the crowd. He is still facing to his right in Z142, and he is still doing so in Z160 (though not as much as in Z140). How could ricochet fragments from the traffic signal’s guy rod have struck him in the back of the head in this time frame? They would have hit him on the right side of his head, possibly including the right side of his face, not on the back of his head.

Although this next problem does not relate to the back-of-head fragments, another difficulty with the traffic-signal-ricochet theory is that it cannot explain the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague, and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking toward Tague to cut his face.

Any reasonable, objective person who is not pathologically committed to defending the lone-gunman theory can easily deduce that the two back-of-head fragments can only be ricochet fragments. They are not at the debunked cowlick entry site, and they are about 4 inches from the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report. As so many wound ballistics and forensic experts have explained, including WC apologist Dr. Larry Sturdivan, FMJ bullets do not “shear off” fragments on the outer table of the skull as they enter the skull, especially not from the cross section of the bullet.

As mentioned, Clark Panel member Dr. Fisher told Howard Donahue that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Donahue, himself a court-certified firearms expert, came to the same conclusion. Of course, the Clark Panel and Donahue did not have the benefit of OD analysis and did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, nor did they know that the object is neatly superimposed over the image of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. If the bullet fragment inside the 6.5 mm object must be a ricochet fragment, the same must be true of the McDonnel fragment.

A plausible, credible candidate for the bullet that produced these ricochet fragments is the bullet that struck the pavement just after the limousine passed the front steps of the TSBD’s entrance. Five witnesses saw this pavement strike, and fragments from this bullet would have had a trajectory to hit JFK in the back of the head. Harold Weisberg discusses this pavement strike in his book Never Again (pp. 185-187).

So credible are the accounts of this pavement shot that even WC apologists Jim Moore and Gerald Posner acknowledge it. Unfortunately, they float truly whacky theories in an attempt to explain this shot within the confines of the lone-gunman theory. Moreover, neither of their theories attempts to explain the back-of-head fragments.

[Tim Nickerson]

Since the WC apologists in this thread have fallen silent, now is a good time for more follow-up points.

Notice how the WC apologists in this thread are avoiding the key issues. They are doing this because they have no good answers for them.

Lone-gunman theorists have no credible explanation for the McDonnel fragment and for the genuine 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object. So far, I’ve seen three lone-gunman explanations. Two of them are so far-fetched and bizarre that they really do not deserve comment. The third one is not quite as far-fetched and bizarre but is still strained and implausible. But, let’s take a look at them anyway.

The first theory, proposed by Tim Nickerson, is that the 2.5 mm fragment “may be” the 3 x 1 mm fragment mentioned in the autopsy report. Nickerson obviously has never bothered to read any of Dr. Mantik’s research on the subject. If he had read that research, he would know that the genuine fragment inside the 6.5 object is 6.3 mm long (some might say 6.4 mm) and 2.5 mm wide, i.e., 6.3 x 2.5 mm. I’ve been referring to this fragment as “the 2.5 mm fragment” for convenience, but its length and width are 6.3 x 2.5 mm. Like all genuine fragments, it is irregular in shape. For most of its length, it is 2 mm wide, and part of its right side is jagged with slivers jutting out here and there. So, no, there’s no way that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object could be the 3 x 1 mm fragment that Humes mentioned and removed.

The second theory also comes from Tim Nickerson. This theory is that the McDonnel fragment is Humes’s 3 x 1 mm fragment! Now, if you’re thinking, “wait a minute, how could the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment both be the 3 x 1 mm fragment?”, that’s a very good question. Anyway, let’s continue.

For one thing, the McDonnel fragment, as McDonnel himself noted, is at the back of the skull "between the galea and the outer table of the skull” and is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays. Second, and most important, the McDonnel fragment is very small—it is less than 1 mm in length and width. Therefore, it is absurd to believe that anyone at the autopsy could have mistaken this tiny fragment for the 3 x 1 mm fragment.

Just so no one thinks I am misrepresenting what Nickerson has said, let me quote his own words from one of my recent exchanges with him:
 

The third theory is that all the fragments that were deposited on the back of JFK’s head came from a ricochet shot that first hit the guy rod of the traffic signal near the oak tree on Elm Street. This theory at least acknowledges the fact that the back-of-head fragments could only be ricochet fragments, just as Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue. However, this theory has several severe problems.

For starters, this theory requires us to believe that the sixth-floor gunman either (1) fired a shot when he could see that the shot might hit the traffic signal’s horizontal support pole or its guy rod or (2) fired a shot before JFK passed under the traffic signal but missed so badly that the bullet hit the guy rod (it could also have hit the horizontal support pole). Either of these scenarios strains credulity.

Another problem with this theory is that any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired at around Z140, which would have forced the gunman to fire at a very steep downward angle, almost straight down. The traffic signal was only about 10-15 feet from the oak tree, as we can see in any number of photos of Dealey Plaza, including some of the photos taken of the Secret Service reenactment; therefore, a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod (or its horizontal support pole) could only have been fired at around Z140. It is highly unlikely that any gunman in the sixth-floor window would have taken a shot when he would have had to fire at such an awkwardly sharp downward angle. (Keep in mind, too, that the sixth-floor gunman’s view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210.)

How steep of a downward angle are we talking about for a Z140 shot? Well, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC that a shot fired at Z161, 21 frames and 1.1 seconds after Z140, would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees (5 H 171). Therefore, a shot fired at around Z140 would have required an even steeper downward angle—again, almost straight down.

And then there’s the problem of the trajectory of ricochet fragments from the traffic signal to the back of JFK’s head. In Z140, JFK is facing to his right while waving at the crowd. He is still facing to his right in Z142, and he is still doing so in Z160 (though not as much as in Z140). How could ricochet fragments from the traffic signal’s guy rod have struck him in the back of the head in this time frame? They would have hit him on the right side of his head, possibly including the right side of his face, not on the back of his head.

Although this next problem does not relate to the back-of-head fragments, another difficulty with the traffic-signal-ricochet theory is that it cannot explain the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague, and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking toward Tague to cut his face.

Any reasonable, objective person who is not pathologically committed to defending the lone-gunman theory can easily deduce that the two back-of-head fragments can only be ricochet fragments. They are not at the debunked cowlick entry site, and they are about 4 inches from the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report. As so many wound ballistics and forensic experts have explained, including WC apologist Dr. Larry Sturdivan, FMJ bullets do not “shear off” fragments on the outer table of the skull as they enter the skull, especially not from the cross section of the bullet.

As mentioned, Clark Panel member Dr. Fisher told Howard Donahue that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment. Donahue, himself a court-certified firearms expert, came to the same conclusion. Of course, the Clark Panel and Donahue did not have the benefit of OD analysis and did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, nor did they know that the object is neatly superimposed over the image of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. If the bullet fragment inside the 6.5 mm object must be a ricochet fragment, the same must be true of the McDonnel fragment.

A plausible, credible candidate for the bullet that produced these ricochet fragments is the bullet that struck the pavement just after the limousine passed the front steps of the TSBD’s entrance. Five witnesses saw this pavement strike, and fragments from this bullet would have had a trajectory to hit JFK in the back of the head. Harold Weisberg discusses this pavement strike in his book Never Again (pp. 185-187).

So credible are the accounts of this pavement shot that even WC apologists Jim Moore and Gerald Posner acknowledge it. Unfortunately, they float truly whacky theories in an attempt to explain this shot within the confines of the lone-gunman theory. Moreover, neither of their theories attempts to explain the back-of-head fragments.

On New Year's Eve, you said you were done responding to me. Now, here you are throwing a whole slew of claims at me and expecting me to address each and every one, when you have thus far failed to properly address the problem of a large fragment apparently missing from the AP view. A large fragment in the forehead is visible on the lateral view. Another large fragment is seen above and behind the right eye in that lateral view. That's right where Humes said that he removed it from. Where are the forehead fragment and the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the AP view?