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

[Charles Collins]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me get this straight…

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

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

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

[Tim Nickerson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael T. Griffith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael T. Griffith]

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

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

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

Posted by: Charles Collins:

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Jerry Organ:

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Jerry Organ:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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