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

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

You are totally confused--or are deflecting. I did not say that any fragments were removed from the galea, and the galea fragment--the McDonnel fragment--was not just "small lead splatter." You still have not read my first few posts in this thread, have you? What about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment in the outer table? I notice you ignored it--again. You don't seem to understand, or are simply refusing to acknowledge, the back-of-head fragments that must be explained.

Do you have any idea how painful it would be to have even a "small lead splatter," much less the McDonnel fragment, hit your head hard enough to go through your scalp, through your outer table, and into your galea? Take the thinnest needle you can find and try pushing it into your head hard enough to penetrate through your scalp and outer table and into your galea--I guarantee you that it will hurt, that it will cause a painful sting.

Or, try taking a somewhat wider needle and push it into your head hard enough to go through your scalp and into your outer table. I promise you that it will cause an even more painful jab.

So enough with this nonsense that after JFK had a fragment penetrate into his galea and another fragment penetrate into his outer table, he did not react and even kept on smiling and waving. This is an unserious, absurd idea.

Oswald bought the coke before Baker saw him. Read the articles I cited.

Your explanation of Oswald's movements and timing does not even remotely work. It is loaded with specious, forced assumptions that you are compelled to make in order to try to get Oswald into the second-floor lunchroom without being seen or heard on the stairs and without being seen on the second-floor landing by Truly. Again, read the articles I cited.

I think that the reports said that there were a number of small fragments on the back of JFK's head (xray) outside the skull.
Even if u are correct that one of these was 6.5 by 2.5 then i dont see why this/these had to be very painful.
A blunt bang on the head can be very painful (with much swelling & bruising). But a sharp bang aint necessarily very painful.
And i dont see why these fragments could not have come from Oswald's shot-1 ricochet off the signal arm (guy rod).
The brass FMJ fragments into 2 halves.
The remnant lead slug is usually in one piece.
Except that there is always some lead splatter (& praps some brass splatter).

[Michael T. Griffith]

I think that the reports said that there were a number of small fragments on the back of JFK's head (xray) outside the skull.

Sigh. . . . The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment was not "outside the skull." It was embedded in the outer table, which means it tore through all four of the layers that constitute the scalp, two of which are tough and dense. You *still* have not read my first few posts on the back-of-head fragments, apparently.

Even if u are correct that one of these was 6.5 by 2.5 then i dont see why this/these had to be very painful.
A blunt bang on the head can be very painful (with much swelling & bruising). But a sharp bang aint necessarily very painful.
And i dont see why these fragments could not have come from Oswald's shot-1 ricochet off the signal arm (guy rod).
The brass FMJ fragments into 2 halves.
The remnant lead slug is usually in one piece.
Except that there is always some lead splatter (& praps some brass splatter).

Having a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment hit you hard enough to tear through all the layers of your scalp and embed itself into your outer table would be nothing like a "blunt bang" but a rather sharp and painful stab. Again, get a needle or a needle-like object and see how hard you have to push to penetrate through your scalp and into your outer table, and see how much it hurts.

In rechecking the sources on the McDonnel fragment, I see that McDonnel said the fragment was "between" the galea and the outer table. That means the fragment penetrated the skin of the scalp, went through the subcutaneous tissue beneath the skin of the scalp, and then tore through the galea and lodged in the layer between the galea and the outer table (the periostium). The galea is defined as " a sturdy layer of dense fibrous tissue." The periostium is also quite dense.

It is apparent that you are beyond persuasion regarding your silly, bizarre theory. Your theory butchers Donahue's plausible ricochet theory and morphs it into a bizarre joke that assumes that "Oswald" fired nearly straight down, that he fired when the guy rod was near his target in his field of view, that this bullet struck the guy rod, that the bullet generated a fragment that tore through three of the four layers of JFK's scalp and lodged between the galea and his outer table, that the bullet also generated another fragment that tore through JFK's galea and periostium and then embedded itself in his outer table, and that, amazingly, JFK just kept on casually smiling and waving after receiving these two painful fragment hits. This is a sad joke.

To make matters worse, your whacky ricochet theory requires us to believe that a fragment from the alleged guy-rod-collision somehow magically traveled hundreds of feet and struck the curb near Tague hard enough to send a chip of concrete streaking toward his face with enough velocity to cut it, or that this magic fragment hit Tague's face directly and that another magic fragment struck the curb near Tague and created a visible scar that everyone who saw it on 11/22 described as a bullet mark.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Michael T. Griffith....... Sigh. . . . The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment was not "outside the skull." It was embedded in the outer table, which means it tore through all four of the layers that constitute the scalp, two of which are tough and dense. You *still* have not read my first few posts on the back-of-head fragments, apparently.
...........OK, IT (IF IT EXISTED) WAS NOT OUTSIDE THE SKULL.

Having a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment hit you hard enough to tear through all the layers of your scalp and embed itself into your outer table would be nothing like a "blunt bang" but a rather sharp and painful stab. Again, get a needle or a needle-like object and see how hard you have to push to penetrate through your scalp and into your outer table, and see how much it hurts.
............ SO, U AGREE WITH ME, THAT IT (IF IT EXISTED) WOULD BE NOTHING LIKE A PAINFUL BLUNT BANG.
............ IT DID NOT HURT MUCH, KOZ WE KNOW THAT JFK DID NOT REACT MUCH. A QUICK STAB OF 1.5 MM OF SCALP WOULD GIVE VERY LITTLE PAIN. PENETRATION OF THE OUTER TABLE OF SKULL PROBLY GIVES VERY LITTLE PAIN. PAIN IN BONES IS PROBLY MORE OF A LONG TERM THING, AN ACHE, TO TELL U THAT ALL IS NOT WELL. ALL OF WHICH CAN BE IGNORED IF THE LARGE FRAGMENT DID NOT EXIST.
............ PUSHING A NEEDLE INTO THE SCALP & OUTER TABLE WOULD BE DIFFERENT TO THE NEEDLE IMPACTING & PENETRATING THE SAY 5MM OF SCALP & BONE IN SAY 0.00003 SEC. TRY IT & SEE HOW MUCH IT HURTS.

In rechecking the sources on the McDonnel fragment, I see that McDonnel said the fragment was "between" the galea and the outer table. That means the fragment penetrated the skin of the scalp, went through the subcutaneous tissue beneath the skin of the scalp, and then tore through the galea and lodged in the layer between the galea and the outer table (the periostium). The galea is defined as " a sturdy layer of dense fibrous tissue." The periostium is also quite dense.
.................. I THINK THIS REFERS TO THE 1 BY 1 FRAGMENT. BUT I THORT THAT THERE WERE A LARGE NUMBER OF FRAGMENTS ON THE TOP BACK RIGHT OF THE HEAD, IN XRAY.

It is apparent that you are beyond persuasion regarding your silly, bizarre theory. Your theory butchers Donahue's plausible ricochet theory and morphs it into a bizarre joke that assumes that "Oswald" fired nearly straight down, that he fired when the guy rod was near his target in his field of view, that this bullet struck the guy rod, that the bullet generated a fragment that tore through three of the four layers of JFK's scalp and lodged between the galea and his outer table, that the bullet also generated another fragment that tore through JFK's galea and periostium and then embedded itself in his outer table, and that, amazingly, JFK just kept on casually smiling and waving after receiving these two painful fragment hits. This is a sad joke.
............... DONAHUE'S RICOCHET THEORY IS THAT SHOT-1 HIT THE TARMAC, & FRAGMENTS OF SLUG HIT JFK & EMBEDDED IN TOP BACK RIGHT OF HEAD, & 2 HALF JACKETS LANDED IN THE LIMO. SILLY.
............... HOLLAND'S RICOCHET THEORY WAS THAT OSWALD'S SHOT-1 RICOCHETED & EVENTUALLY CAUSED TAGUE'S WOUND. SILLY.
............... MY RICOCHET THEORY IS THAT OSWALD'S SHOT-1 HIT A GUY ROD, & LEAD SPLATTER HIT JFK IN TOP BACK RIGHT OF HEAD (XRAY). IF YOUR 6.5 BY 2.5 FRAGMENT EXISTED THEN FOR SURE U CAN ADD THAT TO THE SPLATTER.
................ AND MY THEORY SAYS THAT THE 2 HALF JACKETS LANDED IN THE LIMO. AND THAT THE REMNANT SLUG MADE A HOLE IN THE FLOOR PAN (PHOTO).
................ JFK DID NO KEEP WAVING & SMILING. HE EXCLAIMED MY GOD I AM HIT (KELLERMAN). AND HE FELT & WIPED HIS HEAD (WITNESSES). AND REALIZING THAT HE WAS STILL BREATHING, & THAT NO-ONE ELSE SEEMED TO BE PANICKING, HE MUST HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD BEEN A FIREWORK CRACKER. HAD HE DUCKED DOWN THEN ALL MIGHT HAVE ENDED OK. BUT HE WAS DOOMED. PAINFUL YES. BUT LESS PAINFUL THAN U THINK.
................ OSWALD'S SHOT-1 WAS AT 34.8 DEG, NOT STRAIGHT DOWN.

To make matters worse, your whacky ricochet theory requires us to believe that a fragment from the alleged guy-rod-collision somehow magically traveled hundreds of feet and struck the curb near Tague hard enough to send a chip of concrete streaking toward his face with enough velocity to cut it, or that this magic fragment hit Tague's face directly and that another magic fragment struck the curb near Tague and created a visible scar that everyone who saw it on 11/22 described as a bullet mark.
.................... SHOT-1 OF HICKEY'S AUTO BURST RICOCHETED OFFA THE TARMAC & CURB, & CAUSED TAGUE'S WOUND.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Michael T. Griffith....... Sigh. . . . The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment was not "outside the skull." It was embedded in the outer table, which means it tore through all four of the layers that constitute the scalp, two of which are tough and dense. You *still* have not read my first few posts on the back-of-head fragments, apparently.
...........OK, IT (IF IT EXISTED) WAS NOT OUTSIDE THE SKULL.

Having a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment hit you hard enough to tear through all the layers of your scalp and embed itself into your outer table would be nothing like a "blunt bang" but a rather sharp and painful stab. Again, get a needle or a needle-like object and see how hard you have to push to penetrate through your scalp and into your outer table, and see how much it hurts.
............ SO, U AGREE WITH ME, THAT IT (IF IT EXISTED) WOULD BE NOTHING LIKE A PAINFUL BLUNT BANG.
............ IT DID NOT HURT MUCH, KOZ WE KNOW THAT JFK DID NOT REACT MUCH. A QUICK STAB OF 1.5 MM OF SCALP WOULD GIVE VERY LITTLE PAIN. PENETRATION OF THE OUTER TABLE OF SKULL PROBLY GIVES VERY LITTLE PAIN. PAIN IN BONES IS PROBLY MORE OF A LONG TERM THING, AN ACHE, TO TELL U THAT ALL IS NOT WELL. ALL OF WHICH CAN BE IGNORED IF THE LARGE FRAGMENT DID NOT EXIST.
............ PUSHING A NEEDLE INTO THE SCALP & OUTER TABLE WOULD BE DIFFERENT TO THE NEEDLE IMPACTING & PENETRATING THE SAY 5MM OF SCALP & BONE IN SAY 0.00003 SEC. TRY IT & SEE HOW MUCH IT HURTS.

In rechecking the sources on the McDonnel fragment, I see that McDonnel said the fragment was "between" the galea and the outer table. That means the fragment penetrated the skin of the scalp, went through the subcutaneous tissue beneath the skin of the scalp, and then tore through the galea and lodged in the layer between the galea and the outer table (the periostium). The galea is defined as " a sturdy layer of dense fibrous tissue." The periostium is also quite dense.
.................. I THINK THIS REFERS TO THE 1 BY 1 FRAGMENT. BUT I THORT THAT THERE WERE A LARGE NUMBER OF FRAGMENTS ON THE TOP BACK RIGHT OF THE HEAD, IN XRAY.

It is apparent that you are beyond persuasion regarding your silly, bizarre theory. Your theory butchers Donahue's plausible ricochet theory and morphs it into a bizarre joke that assumes that "Oswald" fired nearly straight down, that he fired when the guy rod was near his target in his field of view, that this bullet struck the guy rod, that the bullet generated a fragment that tore through three of the four layers of JFK's scalp and lodged between the galea and his outer table, that the bullet also generated another fragment that tore through JFK's galea and periostium and then embedded itself in his outer table, and that, amazingly, JFK just kept on casually smiling and waving after receiving these two painful fragment hits. This is a sad joke.
............... DONAHUE'S RICOCHET THEORY IS THAT SHOT-1 HIT THE TARMAC, & FRAGMENTS OF SLUG HIT JFK & EMBEDDED IN TOP BACK RIGHT OF HEAD, & 2 HALF JACKETS LANDED IN THE LIMO. SILLY.
............... HOLLAND'S RICOCHET THEORY WAS THAT OSWALD'S SHOT-1 RICOCHETED & EVENTUALLY CAUSED TAGUE'S WOUND. SILLY.
............... MY RICOCHET THEORY IS THAT OSWALD'S SHOT-1 HIT A GUY ROD, & LEAD SPLATTER HIT JFK IN TOP BACK RIGHT OF HEAD (XRAY). IF YOUR 6.5 BY 2.5 FRAGMENT EXISTED THEN FOR SURE U CAN ADD THAT TO THE SPLATTER.
................ AND MY THEORY SAYS THAT THE 2 HALF JACKETS LANDED IN THE LIMO. AND THAT THE REMNANT SLUG MADE A HOLE IN THE FLOOR PAN (PHOTO).
................ JFK DID NO KEEP WAVING & SMILING. HE EXCLAIMED MY GOD I AM HIT (KELLERMAN). AND HE FELT & WIPED HIS HEAD (WITNESSES). AND REALIZING THAT HE WAS STILL BREATHING, & THAT NO-ONE ELSE SEEMED TO BE PANICKING, HE MUST HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD BEEN A FIREWORK CRACKER. HAD HE DUCKED DOWN THEN ALL MIGHT HAVE ENDED OK. BUT HE WAS DOOMED. PAINFUL YES. BUT LESS PAINFUL THAN U THINK.
................ OSWALD'S SHOT-1 WAS AT 34.8 DEG, NOT STRAIGHT DOWN.

To make matters worse, your whacky ricochet theory requires us to believe that a fragment from the alleged guy-rod-collision somehow magically traveled hundreds of feet and struck the curb near Tague hard enough to send a chip of concrete streaking toward his face with enough velocity to cut it, or that this magic fragment hit Tague's face directly and that another magic fragment struck the curb near Tague and created a visible scar that everyone who saw it on 11/22 described as a bullet mark.
.................... SHOT-1 OF HICKEY'S AUTO BURST RICOCHETED OFFA THE TARMAC & CURB, & CAUSED TAGUE'S WOUND.

This is getting sillier and sillier.

"IF" the fragment existed? HUH? Can you name one expert who has ever denied the existence of the small back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays, the fragment that's at the same vertical level as the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Everyone from the Clark Panel to the HSCA FPP to Dr. Sturdivan to Dr. Riley to Dr. Aguilar to Dr. Mantik, etc., etc., has acknowledged the existence of this fragment, and Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is metallic.

This is the back-of-head fragment that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP erroneously identified as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. Even Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan have admitted that back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays cannot be the partner image of the AP x-ray's 6.5 mm object because it is neither as large nor as dense as the 6.5 mm object. Nobody but nobody has ever denied this fragment's existence.

Regarding the McDonnel fragment and the other smaller back-of-head fragments, you still don't seem to understand the basics on this issue. Let me repeat, again: There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object--again, that's the fragment that Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan admit cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. There is also the McDonnel fragment, which is slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment--and I should add that WC apologists have avoided dealing with this fragment as if it were the Black Death. Then, there are three very small fragments, one of which is also inside the image of the 6.5 mm object.

Since the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment are the two largest back-of-head fragments, and since no one disputes their existence, I have focused on them.

Regarding your comment that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment's impact "would be nothing like a painful blunt bang," perhaps part of the problem here is your command of English. I've said repeatedly that the impact of that fragment would have caused a very painful, sharp stabbing sensation when it penetrated all the layers of the scalp and then hit the outer table hard enough to embed itself therein, which is why I've said you should test this yourself by getting a needle and seeing what if felt like to have a small metal surface penetrate into your table.

The term "blunt-force trauma" describes "a non-penetrating type of trauma" caused by "a dull object or surface." So, I don't know even know why you are raising the issue of a "painful blunt bang" when I've repeatedly described the pain as a sharp stabbing pain caused by the penetration of the fragment through the scalp and into the outer table.

Hickey fired no shot. You have zero evidence that he fired a shot. It's pure speculation. No one in his car said he fired a shot. He denied firing a shot. His ammo was checked and accounted for. When Hickey sued Donahue and his publisher, they opted to settle out of court. Hickey's shot could not have hit the EOP entry site, as Donahue himself documented very capably (which is why Donahue went with the spurious cowlick entry site, but that site was later soundly debunked and is now widely rejected even by lone-gunman theorists ala Sturdivan).

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

This is getting sillier and sillier.

"IF" the fragment existed? HUH? Can you name one expert who has ever denied the existence of the small back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays, the fragment that's at the same vertical level as the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Everyone from the Clark Panel to the HSCA FPP to Dr. Sturdivan to Dr. Riley to Dr. Aguilar to Dr. Mantik, etc., etc., has acknowledged the existence of this fragment, and Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is metallic.

This is the back-of-head fragment that the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP erroneously identified as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. Even Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan have admitted that back-of-head fragment seen on the lateral x-rays cannot be the partner image of the AP x-ray's 6.5 mm object because it is neither as large nor as dense as the 6.5 mm object. Nobody but nobody has ever denied this fragment's existence.

Regarding the McDonnel fragment and the other smaller back-of-head fragments, you still don't seem to understand the basics on this issue. Let me repeat, again: There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object--again, that's the fragment that Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Sturdivan admit cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. There is also the McDonnel fragment, which is slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment--and I should add that WC apologists have avoided dealing with this fragment as if it were the Black Death. Then, there are three very small fragments, one of which is also inside the image of the 6.5 mm object.

Since the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment are the two largest back-of-head fragments, and since no one disputes their existence, I have focused on them.

Regarding your comment that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment's impact "would be nothing like a painful blunt bang," perhaps part of the problem here is your command of English. I've said repeatedly that the impact of that fragment would have caused a very painful, sharp stabbing sensation when it penetrated all the layers of the scalp and then hit the outer table hard enough to embed itself therein, which is why I've said you should test this yourself by getting a needle and seeing what if felt like to have a small metal surface penetrate into your table.

The term "blunt-force trauma" describes "a non-penetrating type of trauma" caused "a dull object or surface." So, I don't know even know why you are raising the issue of a "painful blunt bang" when I've repeatedly described the pain as a sharp stabbing pain caused by the penetration of the fragment through the scalp and into the outer table.

Hickey fired no shot. You have zero evidence that he fired a shot. It's pure speculation. No one in his car said he fired a shot. He denied firing a shot. His ammo was checked and accounted for. When Hickey sued Donahue and his publisher, they opted to settle out of court. Hickey's shot could not have hit the EOP entry site, as Donahue himself documented very capably (which is why Donahue went with the spurious cowlick entry site, but that site was later soundly debunked and is now widely rejected even by lone-gunman theorists ala Sturdivan).

There was no 6.5 by 2.5 fragment. They extracted a 7 by 2 & a 3 by 1 fragment. Then why did they not extract the 6.5 by 2.5 fragment?
But, if the 6.5 by 2.5 was true, then we have the results of one test concerning the pain of a fragment shooting throo 1.6 mm of scalp at say 500 fps & hitting the skull, in about 1/30,000th of a second, & this test showed that there was not a lot of pain.
That test  was carried out in Elm  St on 22nov1963.
Hickey fired  at least 4 shots at Z300 to Z312. Bell shows Hickey holding the AR15 in every frame up untill Hickey enters the TUP.
Donahue did not agree with the cowlick inshoot. I have his book MORTAL ERROR by Menninger.

[Michael T. Griffith]

There was no 6.5 by 2.5 fragment. They extracted a 7 by 2 & a 3 by 1 fragment. Then why did they not extract the 6.5 by 2.5 fragment?

The fragment is 6.3 x 2.5 mm, not 6.5 x 2.5 mm. Horizontally, most of the fragment is only about 1.8-2.0 mm in width. It is less than half the size of the 6.5 mm object. See Dr. Mantik's diagram of the fragment. Again, Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser both confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 fragment is metallic, and even Sturdivan and Fitzpatrick and Riley have acknowledged that it cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray.

Why didn't the autopsy doctors extract this fragment? The better question is, Why didn't they even mention it in the autopsy report? They most likely saw it but did not dare acknowledge it (1) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site, since it's about 9 cm (3.5 inches) above the EOP entry wound, (2) because they could not associate it with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (i.e., the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail), and (3) because it did not line up with the high fragment trail (which trail they also failed to mention in the autopsy report).

One could also ask, Whyt didn't the autopsy doctors mention the brazenly obvious high fragment trail seen on the lateral skull x-rays? That trail is at least 2 inches above the EOP entry site and is concentrated in the right frontal region. They said nothing about it (1) because it was a separate fragment trail from the low fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report, and (2) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site.

But, if the 6.5 by 2.5 was true, then we have the results of one test concerning the pain of a fragment shooting throo 1.6 mm of scalp at say 500 fps & hitting the skull, in about 1/30,000th of a second, & this test showed that there was not a lot of pain.
That test  was carried out in Elm  St on 22nov1963.

This is nonsense. 1.6 mm of scalp equals only 0.06 inches--or just 3/50ths of an inch. The average male scalp is at least 5.5 mm deep/thick, so 1.6 mm would not even be halfway through the scalp and would not include the two toughest layers (the galea and the periosteum), much less into the outer table.

I don't doubt that a fragment that only penetrated 1.6 mm into the scalp would not cause a lot of pain. However, a fragment that penetrated into the periosteum (i.e., between the galea and the outer table--the McDonnel fragment) would certainly cause a sharp stabbing pain, and a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp, including the galea and the periosteum, and embedded itself into the outer table would cause an even sharper stabbing pain.

Hickey fired  at least 4 shots at Z300 to Z312. Bell shows Hickey holding the AR15 in every frame up untill Hickey enters the TUP.
Donahue did not agree with the cowlick inshoot. I have his book MORTAL ERROR by Menninger.

This is fiction. Again, even Donahue recognized that a shot from Hickey could not have entered at the EOP entry site. This is why he erroneously accepted the now-debunked cowlick entry site. I knew Donahue, and I'd be willing to bet that if he had known that the cowlick site was bogus, he would have drastically revised his theory. But he died in 1999, years before the cowlick site was debunked.

You just don't care that no one in Hickey's car said he fired a shot. You say they were all lying, even though Powers and O'Donnell were very critical of the Secret Service and would not have hesitated to tell Tip O'Neill that Hickey fired a shot during the assassination.

There are good reasons that your whacky theory of the shooting is held by only a small handful of people.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

The fragment is 6.3 x 2.5 mm, not 6.5 x 2.5 mm. Horizontally, most of the fragment is only about 1.8-2.0 mm in width. It is less than half the size of the 6.5 mm object. See Dr. Mantik's diagram of the fragment. Again, Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser both confirmed with multiple OD measurements that the 6.3 x 2.5 fragment is metallic, and even Sturdivan and Fitzpatrick and Riley have acknowledged that it cannot be the partner image of the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray.

Why didn't the autopsy doctors extract this fragment? The better question is, Why didn't they even mention it in the autopsy report? They most likely saw it but did not dare acknowledge it (1) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site, since it's about 9 cm (3.5 inches) above the EOP entry wound, (2) because they could not associate it with the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (i.e., the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail), and (3) because it did not line up with the high fragment trail (which trail they also failed to mention in the autopsy report).

One could also ask, Whyt didn't the autopsy doctors mention the brazenly obvious high fragment trail seen on the lateral skull x-rays? That trail is at least 2 inches above the EOP entry site and is concentrated in the right frontal region. They said nothing about it (1) because it was a separate fragment trail from the low fragment trail that they described in the autopsy report, and (2) because they could not associate it with the EOP entry site.

This is nonsense. 1.6 mm of scalp equals only 0.06 inches--or just 3/50ths of an inch. The average male scalp is at least 5.5 mm deep/thick, so 1.6 mm would not even be halfway through the scalp and would not include the two toughest layers (the galea and the periosteum), much less into the outer table.

I don't doubt that a fragment that only penetrated 1.6 mm into the scalp would not cause a lot of pain. However, a fragment that penetrated into the periosteum (i.e., between the galea and the outer table--the McDonnel fragment) would certainly cause a sharp stabbing pain, and a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp, including the galea and the periosteum, and embedded itself into the outer table would cause an even sharper stabbing pain.

This is fiction. Again, even Donahue recognized that a shot from Hickey could not have entered at the EOP entry site. This is why he erroneously accepted the now-debunked cowlick entry site. I knew Donahue, and I'd be willing to bet that if he had known that the cowlick site was bogus, he would have drastically revised his theory. But he died in 1999, years before the cowlick site was debunked.

You just don't care that no one in Hickey's car said he fired a shot. You say they were all lying, even though Powers and O'Donnell were very critical of the Secret Service and would not have hesitated to tell Tip O'Neill that Hickey fired a shot during the assassination.

There are good reasons that your whacky theory of the shooting is held by only a small handful of people.

Yes my 1.5mm thick scalp should have been 3mm to 8mm thick (i blame bad wording in wiki).
Anyhow pulling a hair out of our scalp slowly would i reckon be much more painful than pulling it out at 500 fps.
I will have a re-read of Mortal Error re Donahue's angles etc.
Hmmmmm...... what if the 6.3 by 2.5 fragment (if true), happened some time between 22nov1963 & the previous xrays (taken in i think 1960)?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Yes my 1.5mm thick scalp should have been 3mm to 8mm thick (i blame bad wording in wiki).
Anyhow pulling a hair out of our scalp slowly would i reckon be much more painful than pulling it out at 500 fps.
I will have a re-read of Mortal Error re Donahue's angles etc.

The average adult scalp is between 5.5 mm and 5.8 mm deep/thick. I said 5.5 mm to be conservative and to give every benefit of doubt.

It is just not reasonable to argue that a fragment that tore through four of the five layers of the scalp and penetrated into the periosteum would not have caused a sharp stabbing pain. It is even more unreasonable to claim that a fragment that tore through every layer of the scalp and embedded itself in the outer table would not have caused an even sharper stabbing pain.

Yes, do read Donahue's research on the angles involved with the rear head shot. One of the things that led Donahue to look for another shooter for the rear head shot was his realization that no bullet fired from the alleged Oswald window could have hit near the EOP and then created the exit wound claimed by the autopsy doctors. He realized, as the WC acknowledged in one of their diagrams, that JFK's head would have had to be titled about 60 degrees forward to enable a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window to have created the entry and exit wounds described by the autopsy doctors.

Hmmmmm...... what if the 6.3 by 2.5 fragment (if true), happened some time between 22nov1963 & the previous xrays (taken in i think 1960)?

Surely you know that this is a very far-fetched suggestion. There is no record of JFK being anywhere near gunfire in a paved area before the day of the assassination. JFK did not enjoy guns and hunting. His only known hunting activity was reportedly when LBJ took him hunting on his ranch about two weeks after the 1960 election, and nothing unusual was reported as occurring during the outing--and, needless to say, there was no pavement in the woods where they were hunting.

You keep saying "if true" about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. Why? Do you think that Dr. Mantik fabricated his OD measurements of the fragment? Do you think that Dr. Chesser fabricated his OD measurements of the fragment? Dr. Mantik discovered the fragment only after viewing the 6.5 mm object under high magnification, and he then did OD measurements on it to confirm his visual detection.

Do you think that Dr. Fitzpatrick was somehow mistaken when he said, after spending many hours examining the skull x-rays over a two-day period, that there is a small fragment in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays that is within the 6.5 mm object's area when viewed from the AP angle? Do you think that all the HSCA FPP experts were mistaken when they said they saw a small back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays that vertically aligned with the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray? Do you understand that even Dr. Sturdivan has acknowledged that there's a small bullet fragment in that location on the lateral x-rays but that it cannot be the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object?

There's no "if true" about it.

Researchers have long puzzled over Sibert and O'Neill's reference to a bullet fragment "at the rear of the skull" in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy (p. 4). They said it was the "next largest fragment" and that it appeared to be "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone." The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is close to the lamda, and the lamda is the meeting point of the lambdoid suture and sagittal suture at the top of the occiput; it can certainly be described as the juncture of the skull bone in the back of the head.

However, the autopsy report says that the second-largest fragment was 3 x 1 mm, and that fragment was nowhere near the back of the head but was very close to the right orbit, as we can see on the skull x-rays.

Some researchers, myself included, rightly suspect that Sibert and O'Neill's brief entry about a rear-head fragment was based on the autopsy doctors talking about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, and that the autopsy doctors chose to suppress the fragment's existence because of the severe problems it posed for their scenario of the shooting. Being at/near the rear "juncture of the skull bone," the fragment was far too high to be associated with the EOP entry site, and there was no other entry wound that could account for its presence at/near the lamda.

So, they opted to suppress its existence. As they did with the high fragment trail, they did not mention the back-of-head fragment in the autopsy report; however, they did not realize that Sibert and O'Neill mentioned the fragment in their 11/26/23 report. This could be one of the reasons that Sibert and O'Neill's report was not included in the WC volumes and was suppressed for years.

The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment could be described as the second-largest fragment on the x-rays, second only to the 7 x 2 mm fragment near the right orbit. Indeed, without the benefit of high magnification, the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment may have appeared to the autopsy doctors to be somewhat smaller, especially given its appearance on the lateral skull x-rays.