The Saga of the Largest Metallic Fragment

[Greg Burnham]

David Mantik's new abstract was just published in the peer reviewed medical journal, Medical Research Archives.

The essay can be found and downloaded (or read online) for free at this link:

The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest "Metallic Fragment"

Highly recommended reading.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg,

Thanks for this.

For almost all, I'm guessing, Mantik's exploration is uncharted territory. He is confronted with facts, two x-rays. Two alleged facts. Not alleged by just anyone. Alleged by the U.S. Attorney General and a prestigious panel bearing his name. And Mantik challenges the allegation. He maintains the allegation that the two x-rays represent reality is false. In other words, he claims the two x-rays are forgeries, BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

Scientists, including Mantik, are taught to revere perceived facts. Scientific theory bends toward facts. Quantum theory, which underlies all modern technology, was invented in 1903 by Max Planck because he was able to solve a classical physics problem only by assuming energy exists in discrete packets and is not continuous. Max Planck bent physics theory to the actual observed behavior of "black bodies" -- which today we think of as wood stoves. In "classical" theory, stoves got infinitely hot -- an impossibility. In quantum mechanics, the stove behaves as observed.

Mantik goes Planck one better. He questions the perceived fact. For that he is to be applauded.

Applauded because assuming a conspiracy to kill JFK, one must assume the conspirators, either to kill or to cover up, would stop at nothing.

[Glenn Nall]

Greg - great article. very believable. thanks for posting it. i'd sure like to hear that audio taped phone chat where Dr Ebersole shuts up and runs away. wow.

Jon -

"Mantik challenges the allegation. He maintains the allegation that the two x-rays [and everything else that] represent reality is false."

right. this is why there are CTers, because we are willing to challenge the snowjob, to think for ourselves, whereas the LNers are NOT.

"assuming a conspiracy to kill JFK, one must assume the conspirators, either to kill or to cover up, would stop at nothing."

exactly.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Mark Knight]

Good stuff, Mr. Burnham. Thanks for sharing it.

[Greg Burnham]

You're all very welcome.

[Pat Speer]

I started to read the article and almost threw up. In figure 2, Mantik claims the club-shaped forehead fragment on the X-ray marked with a red arrow was the fragment removed at autopsy. This is something he picked up from Dr. Lattimer and has continued to push, even though I exposed it as complete nonsense years ago.

So, why does he do that? Well, just think of it. IF the fragment removed during the autopsy was removed from behind the eye, as claimed by all the participants of the autopsy, then Mantik has to deal with the fact there is a fragment behind the eye on the lateral x-ray, that just so happens to perfectly align with the supposedly 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray. This is shown here:

And no, I'm not alone in my belief the large fragments supposedly on the back of the head was not really on the back of the head. I am, in fact, in very good company:

From patspeer.com, chapter 18:

The autopsy report written by Dr. Humes states: “There is edema and ecchymosis (bruising) diffusely over the right supra-orbital ridge (the eye socket) with abnormal mobility of the underlying bone” and that “roentgenograms (x-rays) of the skull reveal multiple minute fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge… From the surface of the disrupted cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.” While these statements supported that the fragments were behind the eye, one might stretch them to support they were just behind the forehead as well. Perhaps then Humes' testimony was more specific.

Indeed, it was. Before the Warren Commission, Humes testified that while studying the x-rays taken at the beginning of the autopsy, he'd observed "A rather sizable fragment visible by x-ray just above the right eye" and that the majority of the fragments visible on the x-rays were "dustlike...with the exception of this one I previously mentioned which was seen to be above and very slightly behind the right orbit." After being shown Exhibit 388, on which this fragment was depicted behind the right eye, he then explained: “We attempted to examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.” Arlen Specter then asked: "When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President’s eye?” To which Humes replied: “Yes, sir. Above and somewhat behind the President’s eye." He then continued: "We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.”

Humes tried to get through to the HSCA as well. Dr Petty: “the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen in the lateral view” Dr. Humes: “Up by the eyebrow.” Dr. Petty: “no up by the—in the back of the skull.” Petty returned to the topic later: “we’re trying to establish whether this particular sharp-edged radiopaque defect is close to the back of the skull or close to the front of the skull." Dr. Humes: “I can’t be sure I see it in the lateral at all, do you? Do you see it?” Dr. Petty evaded Humes’ question and turned to Dr. Boswell: “Were these fragments that were recovered at all?” To which Boswell, obviously trusting Petty that the fragments were where he said they were, replied: “No. They were not.”

When asked about the large fragment by the ARRB, Humes similarly relented: “I don’t remember retrieving anything of that size.” Later, however, when asked if he could spot any fragments on the lateral x-ray, he said: “Well, you see, there’s nothing in this projection that appears to be of the size of the one that appeared to be above and behind the right eye on the other one.” Wait. He claimed not to recognize the fragment, and yet he still knew exactly where it was—and it just so happened to be in the exact location where he’d found a fragment during the autopsy??? From this strange slip-up, one might assume Humes suspected all along that the Clark Panel’s fragment on the back of the head was in reality the fragment he’d found near the forehead. By the end of his ARRB interview, in fact, he admitted as much, telling Jeremy Gunn that the large fragment “that you saw in the first AP view of the skull could be the 7 by 2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI.”

Well, at least Humes tried to tell the truth. Unfortunately, no one believed him… that is, except Dr. Boswell, who shared his faith the fragment was the one removed at autopsy. In 1994, when asked about the largest fragment on the x-rays by Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Boswell asserted "The largest piece was up along the frontal sinus, right." When shown the lateral x-ray by the ARRB, moreover, Dr. Boswell told Gunn “I think we dug this piece out right here,” and then explained “right here” as near the “right eye...right supraorbital area.” He later told Gunn that the large semicircular fragment he’d initially had trouble identifying on the A-P x-ray might very well be “the same as the one that appears to be in the frontal bone in the lateral.” Well, which part of the frontal bone? In any event, he was on the right track.

And he wasn't alone. While the radiologist at the autopsy, Dr. Ebersole, died years before he could be called to testify before the ARRB, his two assistants at the autopsy, x-ray technicians Jerrol Custer and Edward Reed, who actually took the x-rays, were called to testify, and both confirmed that the large fragment on the x-rays was found behind the right eye. When asked in a series of questions if he could see the large fragment visible on the A-P x-ray on the lateral x-ray, Reed told Gunn, "Yes, I can...In the frontal lobe...Right above the supraorbital ridge...Supraorbital rim. It is right impregnated in there." Even more telling, when asked the same question a week later, Reed's boss on the night of the autopsy, Custer, testified that the large bullet fragment was located in the "Right orbital ridge, superior."

Their statements, moreover, echo what Secret Service Agents Roy Kellerman and William Greer told the Warren Commission. On 3-9-64 Kellerman told the commission that both he and Greer were shown the x-rays during the autopsy and that the only fragment he recalled being removed came from "inside above the eye, the right eye." Shortly thereafter, Greer testified in a similar fashion. He recalled: "I looked at the X-rays when they were taken in the autopsy room, and the person who does that type work showed us the trace of it because there would be little specks of lead where the bullet had come from here and it came to the--they showed where it didn't come on through. It came to a sinus cavity or something they said, over the eye." As Custer and Reed were but technicians, and not officially qualified to interpret the x-rays, we can only assume the "person" who claimed this was Ebersole.

And this wasn't the last time Kellerman spoke on the matter. In 1977, when asked about his role in the autopsy by an HSCA investigator, Kellerman recalled that the x-rays showed "...a whole mass of stars, the only large piece being behind the eye, which was given to the FBI agents when it was removed."

So what did these agents have to say about this fragment? On the night of the autopsy, FBI agents James Sibert and Frank O’Neill signed a receipt as follows: “I hereby acknowledge receipt of a missile removed by Commander James J Humes.” These agents were therefore intimately involved in the recovery of this missile (which they would later insist was the fragment). One might think then that they'd be sure to remember if it was the largest fragment on the x-ray and from where it was removed. While an 11-22-63 memo from their boss, Alan Belmont, written during the autopsy, claimed a bullet was "lodged behind the president's ear," we can only assume this was a misunderstanding of what the agents had actually told their superiors over the phone. Sure enough, Sibert and O'Neill's 11-26 report on the autopsy asserts “The largest section of this missile as portrayed by x-ray appeared to be behind the right frontal sinus.” As the right frontal sinus is just above the eyebrow and is an inch or so lower than the club-shaped fragment widely believed to have been the fragment recovered at the autopsy, this would put the bullet fragment, not an intact bullet as implied by Belmont's memo, behind the eye, and not the ear, as claimed in Belmont's memo. (The club-shaped fragment, it should be noted, was simply in the middle of the forehead, and not lodged behind anything, let alone another body part beginning with the letter "E".)

Lest that not be convincing, Sibert and O'Neill's subsequent statements further confirmed that the largest fragment recovered at autopsy was recovered from behind the eye, and not from the middle of the forehead. Although a 10-24-78 affidavit signed by Agent Sibert for the HSCA said merely that the fragments were recovered from the head, a report on an 8-25-77 interview with James Sibert notes "Sibert believes that both fragments came from the head, probably from the frontal sinus region." An HSCA Report on a 1-10-78 interview with his partner Frank O'Neill, moreover, confirmed that this fragment was recovered from just behind the eye. It states: "O'Neill believes the doctors recovered a piece of the missile from just behind an eye and another one from further back." On 11-8-78, O'Neill even put this in writing; his signed affidavit declares "I saw the doctors remove a piece of the missile from just behind an eye and another one from further back in the head." (P.S. It seems likely O'Neill thought the second fragment recovered was the second largest one noted on the x-rays. This is an understandable mistake. He noted two fragments in his report and the doctors recovered two fragments. Problem is they weren't the same two. The second fragment recovered by the doctors was found right next to the fragment removed from behind the eye while the second largest fragment observed on the x-rays was, according to O'Neill's own report on the autopsy, observed "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone.")

So here we have the men most intimately involved with the skull x-rays ALL stating that the large fragment on the A-P x-ray was in the supraorbital ridge or that the trail of fragments came to an end above and behind the right eye.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Ray Mitcham]

I think it's just a case of Semantiks.

[Martin Hay]

And no, I'm not alone in my belief the large fragments supposedly on the back of the head was not really on the back of the head. I am, in fact, in very good company:

Indeed. Neuroscientist Dr. Joseph N. Riley pointed this out way back in 1993, writing: "There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow."

I think it's a shame that Mantik persists in his claims of alteration instead of updating his arguments to deal with what the evidence actually shows. Which, as Cyril Wecht and Gary Aguilar noted in their recent letter to the editor of the AFTE Journal, is that "a bullet fired from the right front...tangentially struck the top right portion of JFK's skull...with the bulk of the bullet being deflected upward out of the skull...leaving the trail of fine fragments" seen on JFK's lateral skull X-ray.

[Glenn Nall]

"...that 'a bullet fired from the right front...tangentially struck the top right portion of JFK's skull...with the bulk of the bullet being deflected upward out of the skull...leaving the trail of fine fragments' seen on JFK's lateral skull X-ray."

i like this, in keeping with my preference to not complicate, i don't see a need to create or imagine a phony bullet and phony autopsy x-ray when a more realistic scenario that still explains the head wounds and eyewitness testimony works just fine.

what confounds me is that Wecht finds obvious evidence of a conspiracy while Baden, another of one of the world's finest, or at least most renowned, Forensic Examiners, finds the opposite (they oppose each other often, i think, in fact). Lee, the other one (from OJ fame) finds a conspiracy, too, if i'm not mistaken.

Is Baden still on the dark side?

[David G. Healy]

And no, I'm not alone in my belief the large fragments supposedly on the back of the head was not really on the back of the head. I am, in fact, in very good company:

...

I think it's a shame that Mantik persists in his claims of alteration instead of updating his arguments to deal with what the evidence actually shows.

...

I believe David Mantik MD, Ph.D., article is an update, within the last 2 weeks or so. Maybe your neuroscientist "expert" should take a peek, yes?

[Martin Hay]

And no, I'm not alone in my belief the large fragments supposedly on the back of the head was not really on the back of the head. I am, in fact, in very good company:

...

I think it's a shame that Mantik persists in his claims of alteration instead of updating his arguments to deal with what the evidence actually shows.

...

I believe David Mantik MD, Ph.D., article is an update, within the last 2 weeks or so. Maybe your neuroscientist "expert" should take a peek, yes?

Is there a reason why Dr. Riley is only an "expert" whereas Dr. Mantik is apparently the real deal in your estimation?

Is it simply that you'd rather believe Dr. Mantik?

FYI Dr. Riley (who has a Ph.D in neuroscience and specializes in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology) makes a compelling case for two shots to the head - one from the front and one from the rear - without resorting to claims of alteration. He is well worth checking out.

[Martin Hay]

"...that 'a bullet fired from the right front...tangentially struck the top right portion of JFK's skull...with the bulk of the bullet being deflected upward out of the skull...leaving the trail of fine fragments' seen on JFK's lateral skull X-ray."

i like this, in keeping with my preference to not complicate, i don't see a need to create or imagine a phony bullet and phony autopsy x-ray when a more realistic scenario that still explains the head wounds and eyewitness testimony works just fine.

A very sensible approach, Glenn.

There should be more like you.

[Martin Hay]

Delete duplicate.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Martin Hay

[James DiEugenio]

Can I ask a question:

How much bigger would the 6.5 mm fragment be than any other fragment recovered?

[Glenn Nall]

that being said, that my approach to research is somewhat Occamistic (it's MY word!, but you can borrow it), if signs DO point outside of the comfort zone, i'm more than happy to go with them. Mantik sounds legitimate - i was confused by the exact alignment of the whole bullet and the fragment that he suggested... but i recognize that people tend to look for complexities when they're not even needed or called for.