JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories

[Joe Elliott]

You still have not read any of the research on the 6.5 mm object, have you?  Yes, we know the size of the object. Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays.[/size]

Let’s just deal with this point here. Let’s forget about the JFK assassination case for the moment, and narrowly focus on you claim that “Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays”.

Now, my understanding of X-Ray machines, is that you have:

1.   An X-Ray source. This is essentially a point source of X-Rays. The X-Rays “beams” are not all parallel but radiate from this one point.
2.   Next, you have an object you wish to X-Ray, like a head.
3.   Finally, you have a X-Ray photographic plate.

The object to be X-Rayed is always in the middle. The X-Ray photographic place is always placed at right angles so it would be totally ‘lite up’ by the X-Ray source, if no object was in the way.

The photographic plate is like a negative. It shows black in the regions that were not blocked and received the X-Rays. And white in regions that were blocked by the object in the middle and received no or few X-Rays.


Now, let’s say we tape a penny to the front of the head and a penny to the back. We place them so they don’t both line-up with the X-Ray source. We place the head facing the X-Ray source.

An X-Ray of the head will produce two images of the pennies. The ‘front’ penny will cast a larger ‘shadow’, because it is closer to the X-Ray source, and further from the plate.

Question 1:

Do you agree that the ‘frontal’ penny should produce a larger shadow?

Note: I think it will help if you draw on a piece of paper the diverting rays from the X-Ray source.

So, without knowing that the objects are pennies, without knowing their locations within the head in 3-D space, how can one tell the size of either object? How can one tell that these are objects of the same size at different distances, or two objects of different sizes at the same distance?

According to my calculation, if the X-Ray source was 2 meters from the X-Ray plate, and the center of the head only 20 cm from the place, three 6.5 mm objects, one at the very front of the head, one in the center, and one at the very back, will appear on the plate to be 7.8, 7.2 and 6.8 mm wide. The shadow cast on the image is larger the further it is from the plate. The shadow is always going to be wider than the true size.

How can one tell if any of these 3 images were made from an object that was 6.5 mm across? You can’t estimate this without knowing the location of the object within the head.


This is important point, because if one believes that the object in question precisely 6.5 mm across, then it might seem this is too much of a coincidence. But if one realizes that one cannot accurately estimate it’s size, it might be, 7.0 mm, or 6.5 mm or 6.1 mm across, depending on its location within the head, then this argument dissolves away.

[Bill Chapman]

Welcome to the 21st century Grandpa, this isn't about a suitable font to be printed on paper but this is a web page where posts are adjusted and formatted to be viewed on a phone, a tablet, a cathode ray monitor, a laptop, a wide screen monitor, an ultra wide monitor through to a huge TV screen and the size of font that you are using makes scrolling through your insufferable posts just that much more irritating.

JohnM

Yes. Readabilty is what it's all about. For instance, the Arial font was designed to replace Helvetica on computer displays. Properly designed fonts for both online and paper make the act of reading less tiring; apparently the eyes use up to 25% of our total energy on a given day.

My first impression of the enlarged text was that the poster was 'yelling'. I think Griffith is getting evermore frustrated.

I should mention that the larger text causes too much scrolling on my iPad but is just fine one my iPhone.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Let’s just deal with this point here. Let’s forget about the JFK assassination case for the moment, and narrowly focus on you claim that “Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays”.

Now, my understanding of X-Ray machines, is that you have:

1.   An X-Ray source. This is essentially a point source of X-Rays. The X-Rays “beams” are not all parallel but radiate from this one point.
2.   Next, you have an object you wish to X-Ray, like a head.
3.   Finally, you have a X-Ray photographic plate.

The object to be X-Rayed is always in the middle. The X-Ray photographic place is always placed at right angles so it would be totally ‘lite up’ by the X-Ray source, if no object was in the way.

The photographic plate is like a negative. It shows black in the regions that were not blocked and received the X-Rays. And white in regions that were blocked by the object in the middle and received no or few X-Rays.

Now, let’s say we tape a penny to the front of the head and a penny to the back. We place them so they don’t both line-up with the X-Ray source. We place the head facing the X-Ray source.

An X-Ray of the head will produce two images of the pennies. The ‘front’ penny will cast a larger ‘shadow’, because it is closer to the X-Ray source, and further from the plate.

Question 1:

Do you agree that the ‘frontal’ penny should produce a larger shadow?

Note: I think it will help if you draw on a piece of paper the diverting rays from the X-Ray source.

So, without knowing that the objects are pennies, without knowing their locations within the head in 3-D space, how can one tell the size of either object? How can one tell that these are objects of the same size at different distances, or two objects of different sizes at the same distance?

According to my calculation, if the X-Ray source was 2 meters from the X-Ray plate, and the center of the head only 20 cm from the place, three 6.5 mm objects, one at the very front of the head, one in the center, and one at the very back, will appear on the plate to be 7.8, 7.2 and 6.8 mm wide. The shadow cast on the image is larger the further it is from the plate. The shadow is always going to be wider than the true size.

How can one tell if any of these 3 images were made from an object that was 6.5 mm across? You can’t estimate this without knowing the location of the object within the head.

This is important point, because if one believes that the object in question precisely 6.5 mm across, then it might seem this is too much of a coincidence. But if one realizes that one cannot accurately estimate it’s size, it might be, 7.0 mm, or 6.5 mm or 6.1 mm across, depending on its location within the head, then this argument dissolves away.

This reminds me of when you kept asking me why I had not mentioned the irrelevant goat film to Dr. Zacharko while you kept refusing to deal with the obvious differences between the goat's reaction and JFK's reaction and the differences between goat anatomy and human anatomy.

Look, nobody but nobody says there is any doubt about the size of the 6.5 mm object. You are just making up an issue out of thin air. Let's put it this way: The Clark Panel had no problem determining the object's width. Nor did the HSCA. Nor did Dr. Mantik. Nor did Dr. Chesser. Nor did Dr. Fitzpatrick. Nor did Dr. Robertson. Nor did Dr. Riley. Nor did Larry Sturdivan. No expert on either side has expressed any doubt about the width of the object. 

Regarding the fact that part of the EOP rear head entry wound was contained in a fragment of occipital bone, here is some documentation of this fact:

Dr. Finck told General Blumberg that the skull contained only a portion of the crater of the rear head entry wound, which of course means that missing occipital bone contained the other part of the crater:

I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound of entrance. (“Personal Notes on the Assassination of President Kennedy,” Finck’s report to General J.M. Blumberg, February 1, 1965, p. 2)

Dr. Gary Aguilar:

During his HSCA appearance, Boswell described it this way: They had to dissect JFK’s scalp to see the entrance wound in JFK’s skull bone, “But not too much,” Boswell explained, “because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here – there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact, and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.”

A few minutes later, Boswell elaborated: “There was a shelf and then a little hole came up on the side and then one of the smaller of the two fragments in that X-ray, when that arrived, we were able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound.” During a recorded call in 1994 (a copy of which is available at the National Archives), Boswell told one of the authors (Aguilar) the same thing: “The defect – the wound of entrance was at the base of that defect and the shelving on the inner surface of the bone was half on the intact portion of the skull and half on that fragment that we received from Dallas and replaced.”

Thus, detecting the point the fatal bullet struck the head required some reconstruction of JFK’s skull, and perhaps a little imagination, too. Because the presence of a bullet hole was evidently only detected after two pieces of JFK’s shattered occipital bone were pieced together and a gap, showing internal beveling, could be made out between them. (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm. This article includes hyperlinks to sources for the quotes and statements)

Dr. Mantik:

The proposed entry site on the posterior skull presented yet another set of difficulties. According to testimony twice repeated by the second pathologist, J. Thornton Boswell, with Humes at his side, the right posterior entry wound of the skull was also reconstructed late that night. . . . The three bone fragments most likely arrived after this time [after Sibert and O’Neill left the autopsy]. At this early morning hour, then, based primarily on these bone fragments, the pathologists placed the entry site at 2.5 cm to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP) and slightly above it. The smallest of the three late arriving bone fragments fit right into this site according to Boswell. (Assassination Science, p. 96, available at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf. For ease of reading, I have removed the footnotes, but you can check them in the book, which can be downloaded for free from the aforementioned URL)

So only part of the entry wound in the EOP was present in the skull because the other part of it, the other half of the circle of the hole, was in a piece of occipital bone, and at some point that occipital fragment arrived at Bethesda and it contained the other half of the circumference of the entry hole.

In connection with this, we should remember that Dr. Ebersole told the HSCA that he x-rayed the occipital bone fragment that arrived at Bethesda late that night:

The only function that I had was later in the evening, early in the morning--perhaps about twelve thirty a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas and at Dr. Finck's request I x-rayed these [the bone fragment and the neck wound]. These were the last X rays I took. (HSCA deposition, March 11, 1978, pp. 4-5)

Now, obviously, missing occipital bone discredits autopsy photos F3 and F5. There is no trace of any missing occipital bone in those photos. Another problem with those photos is that they do not even show the large head wound described in the autopsy report. The autopsy report says the large defect extended "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" (p. 3). But in the autopsy photos the large defect does not even come close to the occiput.

[Joe Elliott]

This reminds me of when you kept asking me why I had not mentioned the irrelevant goat film to Dr. Zacharko while you kept refusing to deal with the obvious differences between the goat's reaction and JFK's reaction and the differences between goat anatomy and human anatomy.

Look, nobody but nobody says there is any doubt about the size of the 6.5 mm object. You are just making up an issue out of thin air. Let's put it this way: The Clark Panel had no problem determining the object's width. Nor did the HSCA. Nor did Dr. Mantik. Nor did Dr. Chesser. Nor did Dr. Fitzpatrick. Nor did Dr. Robertson. Nor did Dr. Riley. Nor did Larry Sturdivan. This is a non-issue. 

No one ever claimed the ‘object’ was 6.5 mm across?

You still have not read any of the research on the 6.5 mm object, have you?  Yes, we know the size of the object. Modern technology enables us to very precisely determine the size of objects on x-rays.[/size]

The truth is, the size is probably between 6.0 mm and 7.0 mm. And possibly a bit smaller than 6.0 mm. Or a bit larger than 7.0 mm. It should be called a 6 to 7 mm object, not a 6.5 mm fragment. To say it is a 6.5 mm fragment, or a 6.500 fragment, implies its size is known to great precision, and it would be a massive coincidence, that it should match the diameter of a WCC/MC with such precision, by sheer chance. But I suppose CTers will continue to call it a 6.5 mm fragment just like they call the Single Bullet Theory the Magic Bullet Theory. Because the label they put on things is very important to propaganda.

Lots of people, both LNers and CTers have called it a 6.5 mm fragment, but only because early CTers were successful in getting this label established early on. But I will not call it such in the future. Not until it is proven to be somewhere between 6.45 and 6.55 mm in size. Which will never happen. To me it is a 6 to 7 mm object (no, not even a 6 to 7 mm fragment).


P.S. Larry Sturdivan argued that this was an object that was accidentally placed in or on the head. But most LNers say it is a defect in the X-Ray, which I understand does happen. That is one reason multiple X-Rays are taken. So, such defects can be more easily identified when they appear in only one X-Ray but not the others. I don’t take a strong stand on either theory, except to note that an accidental object is possible, when the “object” in question does not look like any kind of fragment but like something that is commonly carried in a pocket.

[Michael Carney]

He was instructed to put fragments of a 6.5 mm jacketed bullet to make it look like the head shot was from the same rifle as the other shots. Because it was not, it was from 5.56 mm frangible round.
I thought I would stir up the pot a little bit.......

[Michael T. Griffith]

Another key reason that the rear head entry wound was moved and that the 6.5 mm object was planted was the fragment trail in the autopsy skull x-rays. The fragment trail is high in the head, over 4 inches above the EOP entry site. Its ends are nowhere near the EOP entry site. Dr. Michael Chesser:

I think that one of the reasons that they moved the entry wound up was due to the fragment particle trail shown in the right lateral skull x-ray. If a line is drawn from the Warren Commission entry site and the proposed exit site, you’ll notice that the particle trail doesn’t correspond with these sites. The prominent particle trail is located in the upper portion of the skull.

Now if you do the same for the HSCA entry and exit sites, you’ll notice that the line is closer to the particle trail, but it still doesn’t seem to correspond.

On the frontal view, the AP x-ray, the particle trail is located high in this image, which is probably in the scalp and meninges. There is a lot going on in this image, with multiple skull fractures, and much of the skull missing over the right frontal, parietal, occipital regions. The orbital rim is fractured on both sides. The vomer bone (nasal) is fractured. You can see that there is brain shadow on the left side, but you really can’t see any on the right side. The burn marks are located on the right side, lateral to the orbital wall. There is low density, or missing bone behind the nasal bones and at the lower edge of the left orbit – and I agree with Dr. Mantik that this suggests missing occipital bone, extending over to the left side. (http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)

Humes said the fragment trail ran from the EOP wound to a point just above the supraorbital ridge, i.e., just above the right eye! In the autopsy report, he wrote that the x-rays showed “multiple minute metallic fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge” (p. 4).

Now, of course, either Humes told a bald-faced lie or a forger removed the fragment trail or moved the fragment trail to the top of the head to discredit the EOP entry site. Humes could not have misread the x-rays so horrendously. Nor could Finck and Boswell. Nor could the radiologist, Dr. Ebersole. Additionally, the autopsy doctors said nothing in the autopsy report or in their testimony about seeing a trail of fragments at the top of the head.

Assuming the fragment trail that we now see on the skull x-rays is the only trail that was on the x-rays at the autopsy, the conspirators realized that Humes’s claim about the fragment trail would be recognized as erroneous, to say the least. Or, if there was a low fragment trail in addition to the trail at the top of the head, the conspirators realized that the low trail had to disappear, because two fragment trails separated by several inches would be clear proof that two bullets had hit the skull.

Did all the autopsy doctors simply tell a whopping lie about the fragment trail, or were the x-rays altered to make the trail they saw disappear? Finck swore up and down in later testimony that he saw a fragment trail that started at the EOP entry site and went upward to a point just above the right eye. Given all the other lies that the autopsy doctors told, I would not be surprised to learn they lied about the fragment trail, but I have a slight nagging suspicion that they might have been telling the truth in this instance.

The forger could have made the low fragment trail disappear, but this would not have been an easy task, and moving the trail by over 4 inches would have been even harder. If there was a low fragment trail, the forger realized that he could not deal with it the same way he dealt with the right-rear defect. He put a large white/impossibly dense patch over the right-rear skull defect. He had no idea that decades later modern technology would enable experts to easily expose the patch as fake via optical density measurements. But he could not just place a patch over a fragment trail that went from the EOP to the right eye. Making that trail disappear would have been a more difficult task than concealing the right-rear head wound.

By ghosting the image of the 6.5 mm object over the small genuine fragment in the back of the head, the forger put a large “fragment” on the outer table of the skull in the back of the head and just below the fragment trail now seen on the skull x-rays, laying the foundation for obliging experts to move the rear head entry wound. And, obligingly enough, the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP both cited the 6.5 mm object as evidence of their phony cowlick entry wound and claimed that the fragment trail was created by the bullet from which the 6.5 mm object supposedly “sheared off” as it struck the cowlick.

If nothing else, WC apologists, since they claim the autopsy x-rays are authentic and pristine, must explain how the three autopsy doctors and the radiologist could have so blunderingly misread the skull x-rays as to mistake a fragment trail near the top of the head for a fragment trail over 4 inches lower. Keep in mind that the autopsy report says nothing about a fragment trail at the top of the head. Moreover, the extant fragment trail runs nearly horizontally, but the autopsy doctors said the fragment trail followed a markedly upward trajectory—from the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye. How in the world could anyone, even a first-year resident, make such an egregious error?

Simply put, the fragment trail described by the autopsy doctors is nowhere to be seen on the extant autopsy x-rays, and the autopsy doctors said nothing about a fragment trail at the top of the skull. So either the autopsy doctors committed one of the most egregious, incomprehensible blunders in forensic history, or they brazenly lied, or the x-rays have been altered.

[Michael Carney]

Jerrol Custer, x-ray technician, had been instructed by Dr Ebersol (sp) to tape metal fragments to the skull bone of JFK. What the skull had originally was very small fragments, nothing like those that would have come from a metal jacked bullet, if you would have gotten any frags at all from a jacketed bullet.

[Michael T. Griffith]

No one ever claimed the ‘object’ was 6.5 mm across?

The truth is, the size is probably between 6.0 mm and 7.0 mm. And possibly a bit smaller than 6.0 mm. Or a bit larger than 7.0 mm. It should be called a 6 to 7 mm object, not a 6.5 mm fragment. To say it is a 6.5 mm fragment, or a 6.500 fragment, implies its size is known to great precision, and it would be a massive coincidence, that it should match the diameter of a WCC/MC with such precision, by sheer chance. But I suppose CTers will continue to call it a 6.5 mm fragment just like they call the Single Bullet Theory the Magic Bullet Theory. Because the label they put on things is very important to propaganda.

Lots of people, both LNers and CTers have called it a 6.5 mm fragment, but only because early CTers were successful in getting this label established early on. But I will not call it such in the future. Not until it is proven to be somewhere between 6.45 and 6.55 mm in size. Which will never happen. To me it is a 6 to 7 mm object (no, not even a 6 to 7 mm fragment).

Look, if you just cannot bring yourself to read the research, there's no point in discussing this issue further with you.

Now, CTers were not the ones who first described the object as being 6.5 mm in diameter. The Clark Panel were the ones who measured the "fragment" to be 6.5 mm in diameter, as they stated in their 1968 report:

This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm in diameter. . . . (p. 11)

No conspiracy theorist knew anything about this fragment until the Clark Panel's report became available.

P.S. Larry Sturdivan argued that this was an object that was accidentally placed in or on the head. But most LNers say it is a defect in the X-Ray, which I understand does happen. That is one reason multiple X-Rays are taken. So, such defects can be more easily identified when they appear in only one X-Ray but not the others. I don’t take a strong stand on either theory, except to note that an accidental object is possible, when the “object” in question does not look like any kind of fragment but like something that is commonly carried in a pocket.

And I have already explained why the accidental-object theory is ridiculous. The object is spatially consistent with the small genuine fragment in the back of the head, so the odds that it is some kind of pill that was dropped on the table and x-rayed with JFK's head over it are astronomically remote. This is not to mention the implausibility that no one would have noticed a pill that size lying on the table.

Furthermore, if the object were a pill, this would mean that it was present on the AP x-ray at the autopsy, which in turn would mean that nobody noticed it, even though it would have been the most obvious "fragment" on the x-rays, far more obvious than the two smaller fragments that the autopsy doctors discerned on the x-rays and removed from the skull.

Most important, and most telling, is that the "pill," to be that bright on the x-ray, would have had to contain more metal than any of JFK's fillings.

The theory that the object is a defect in the x-ray is a howler. For one thing, I would like to see a single solitary example of an x-ray defect being nearly perfectly circular except for the bottom-right portion of the object. Moreover, if the object were an x-ray defect, this would mean it was present on the AP x-ray at the autopsy, which in turn would mean that nobody at the autopsy noticed it. Even more unbelievably, this would also mean that by sheer, cosmic coincidence, the defect occurred in just the exact right place to be spatially consistent with its partner image on the lateral x-rays.

Your labored efforts to avoid the obvious, logical, and scientific conclusion that the 6.5 mm object was planted on the AP x-ray are as sad and silly as if a construction worker who was alone on a tall scaffold threw a small screw at a coworker on the ground and hit his helmet with it, and if the guilty worker then denied throwing the screw and claimed that a piece of space debris had hit his coworker's helmet. Yes, technically speaking, this explanation would not be categorically impossible, since each year some space debris does fall to Earth, but sensible people would dismiss the explanation as ridiculous and too far fetched to warrant a moment's consideration.