Robert Prudhomme

"I suppose they may want it to be Calvery running into the building because it matches certain testimony and it's just nice to think at least one person said they saw something and oh look, there it is on film."

It's not a matter of if Calvery ran to the TSBD, it's a matter of when.

"Like Linda said elsewhere if it's Calvery she would have to have lost quite a bit of weight(a few months after getting hitched).

No impossible but pretty unlikely."

Look closely at Marrion Baker, in the same film, and then look at Baker in other photos and films. Baker was a pretty chunky guy, bordering on obese, yet, in the film, he looks quite thin as well, unless, of course, that is not Baker in the film. I believe we are seeing a trick of the camera lens here that made both of them appear to be thinner.

"Also remember the motorcade was late, so those people could have been standing there for twenty minutes.

Calvery may have stood on that spot with Hicks but just got bored and wandered off."

Calvery was supposedly filmed by Zapruder as the motorcade went by. I fail to understand what you are saying here.

"On one of your recent points.

I myself have no problem with statements not matching, or matching the films, quite the opposite, it's exactly what I've come to expect and why would they match anyway? Who says they are supposed to Robert?"

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying it is your experience that people generally lie when giving statements?

"I do get your point about Baker, it's your opinion and I understand it but I don't believe he needs support for running into the building, he has Truly (and Darnell's footage to an extent) and quite a detailed account of what he saw after he turned onto Elm which is what I believe led him to investigate the building, not the birds, or the sounds but what he saw on the street in front of him, which is mostly verifiable on film.

Marking him as a good cop and by no means a slow one."

Once again, it is not a matter of if Baker entered the TSBD, it is a matter of when he entered the TSBD. To have entered the TSBD when he claimed he did, he must have been invisible, as witnesses recalled seeing Truly enter, but not a uniformed and helmeted motorcycle cop.

I've never considered it before but, JFK being shot in the back of the head at z229, with a frangible bullet, could definitely be a possibility. It would certainly explain his total lack of movement after that frame.

While many would claim that a bullet entering the back of the head should make a large exit wound on his face, this is not always the case. Bullets that expand rapidly (hollow points) or disintegrate entirely (frangible) are notorious for entering a skull, leaving only a tiny entrance wound, and not exiting; but wreaking utter havoc within the skull. Many years ago, I handloaded 110 grain hollow point bullets for a .308 deer rifle, in order to make head shots on deer (didn't want to waste any meat). The results varied. Sometimes, the bullets entered and did not exit; other times, the bullets entered and then made these great gaping exit wounds. Interestingly, these exit wounds sometimes were not even close to the expected path of the bullet, leading me to conclude that a bull (or fragment) did not even exit through one of these wounds but, rather, they were the site where intense hydraulic pressure found a vent.

With a head shot to the back of the head at z229, do you think it possible another bullet entered his back while he was behind the sign?

Does anyone here see how we have been the victims of 50 years of carefully contrived disinformation, or am I addressing the wrong crowd?

Perhaps I am not making clear enough the impossibility of that being Shelley and Lovelady seen strolling down the Elm St. extension.

You see, it's all a matter of timing. We only have 20 seconds to work with here, as that is the amount of time Baker took, from the sound of the last shot until he arrived at the entrance to the TSBD.

In both his first day statement and his WC testimony, Shelley told us that, somewhere in this 20 seconds, he and Lovelady spoke with Gloria Calvery, who had run back up Elm St. from a point east of the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Somehow, in the space of twenty seconds, Gloria Calvery has to witness the last shot, run up the street (either to the concrete island or the TSBD steps - take your pick of Shelley fairy tales), stop and have a conversation about the assassination with S & L, and then S & L have to be 25 steps down the Elm St. extension in order to look back to see Baker and Truly entering the TSBD.

Before anyone comes up with an explanation as to how all of this could have happened in 20 seconds, remember that the theme of this thread is questioning if Gloria Calvery had enough time to even catch up to Baker, let alone all of the other things happening.

If you just look at the supposed still of S & L, it is easy to believe the two men are strolling together down the Elm St. extension. However, if you watch the film, you can see the one fellow (can't recall if it is the Shelley or Lovelady lookalike) actually catches up to and passes the other fellow, without even a glance of recognition. A careful study clearly shows these two are not travelling together. The person(s) that "discovered" Shelley and Lovelady in the film would have seen this, too, and that is why I distrust the origin of this "discovery". If you will recall, the "discovery" took place at Duncan MacRae's forum; a veritable hotbed of disinformation.

Plus, none of the accounts given by Shelley and Lovelady can possibly put them anywhere near this position, timing-wise. Even in Shelley's first day statement, he claims to have strolled across to the concrete island, where he engaged in conversation with Gloria Calvery before heading BACK into the front entrance of the TSBD, and NOT down to the rail yard as he later lied about in his WC testimony.

Sorry, Thomas, but, Shelley and Lovelady strolling down the Elm St. extension is just another fabrication from the WC apologists; designed to distract us from any serious research that might lead us closer to the truth.

"A big mystery: Why did the bad guys (Lovelady and Shelley) mention Calvery? Why didn't they say they decided on their own to leave the steps and go looking around "because lots of other people were doing it" or "we were curious"? Didn't they complicate their bad-guy story by mixing Calvery up in it? How could they imagine that she could / would support the apparent lie that they had stayed on the steps for three minutes?"

Shelley mentioned speaking to Gloria Calvery, out on the little concrete island, in his first day statement, and that he learned the details of the assassination from her then. Perhaps, when it came time to tell the contrived version of events to the WC, someone felt it might be wise to have him keep as much of the original story in the new one as possible.

So, were they lying when they said they were 25 steps down the Elm St. extension and looked back to see Baker/Truly entering the TSBD? While that may well be Calvery seen running behind Baker in the film, it is still impossible for her to beat Baker to the steps, talk to S & L, and for them to be down the street where everyone believes they can see them walking together in the film, BEFORE Baker and Truly go up the steps. (personally, I don't believe that is Shelley and Lovelady seen walking "together" in the film)

As I suggested in another thread, one way to make a lot of testimonies and statements work would be to have Baker ascending the TSBD steps much later than he claimed.

P.S.

My mistake on those statements regarding the third person statuses. However, they are still FBI statements, and past experience in this case has made it very clear that any evidence from the FBI should be examined carefully as it may be altered or fabricated. It is interesting to read the statements of Hicks, Calvery and Westbrook. Their statements, in some parts, are practically the same, word for word; almost as if one person had written them. Coincidence?

Despite the fact these statements are written in the first person, I have looked at the originals and do not see a signature on any of them. Further, each statement is "witnessed" by two FBI agents. Is this supposed to lend some kind of credibility to these statements?

One of the few unlabeled in this, is the person I suspect matches Calvery in the Darnell/Baker frame.

I do not know who created this.

chris

Robert,

The multi- name labeled photo including Mary Woodward appears to be correct.

MARY ELIZABETH WOODWARD, 4812 Alcott, employee, Woman's News, "Dallas Morning News," Dallas, Texas, advised that she, AURELIA ALONZO, MARGARET BROWN and ANNE DONALDSON, on November 22, 1963 left the office of the "Dallas Morning NEWS" just about 12:00 noon to observe the Presidential Motorcade.

They walked to Elm Street and stopped in front of the Texas School Book Depository building, but were located a short distance down the street near the second light post. They were standing in this spot when the Presidential Motorcade came by

There is a light post #1 near the signal light at the Elm St annex corner.

The unidentified woman near Mary Woodward, clothing wise, appears to match the woman in Darnell.

Her distance from where she is standing in Z to "between the TSBD curb and annex" is 120ft. Close enough.

20 seconds @120ft = 4.08mph

If Gloria Calvery is labeled correctly, she is 30ft farther west than Mary Woodward but can't be the woman in Darnell, wrong skirt color. imo

chris

Hi Chris

I wonder just exactly what is meant by "between the TSBD curb and annex" and how close that would be to the TSBD steps. If, as you have calculated, the speed required is 4.08 mph, that is not really all that fast. A man at a fast walk can easily do 4 mph, and that lady in the Couch/Darnell film was definitely booking it.

The problem with ID'ing and locating Calvery is that the women in the group she was in all gave statements to the FBI, and their stories seem to corroborate each other very well as being just west of the position Mary Woodward was in. However, once again, they are recorded in the form of FBI reports; written in the third person and not signed by the person giving the statement (likely never seen by that person either). We have seen, time and again, how the FBI re-wrote the contents of these reports and never informed the subject. Could there have been a concerted effort by the FBI to place Calvery somewhere she wasn't? She does seem to be the focal point of the only two witnesses who can vouch for Baker entering the TSBD when he and Truly claim he did.

Haven't seen Linda in a few days. I would like to see her apply her investigative skills to deducing where Gloria Calvery was during and immediately after the assassination.

Perhaps no one understands the perspective I am taking on this matter, a matter in which Gloria Calvery is but one cog in a very large wheel of deception.

It should be obvious to anyone who has read the testimonies of persons such as Baker, Truly, Vickie Adams, Bill Shelley, Billy Lovelady, Wesley Frazier and others that the different versions of the "truth" being told are so out of tune with each other, only a small percentage of them can be true. As well, each version is so far from reality, it cannot be explained away by innocent "mis-remembering" on the part of an eyewitness.

We have to accept the fact that not only did someone lie, a whole lot of someones lied. The trick is to figure who they are and why they lied or, in some cases, were lied for in FBI reports.

For the umpteenth time, look at Baker's run to the TSBD (notice I did not say INTO the TSBD). This is one of the few things that is more or less verifiable by film. We see the motorcade at a standstill, and one of the cameramen in the motorcade captures Baker on film running to the TSBD. It seems plausible that he has actually done this in 20 seconds after the last shot, as he claimed.

That is where reality stops, though. We next have Shelley and Lovelady who testified, in complete contradiction of their first day statements, that they remained on the TSBD steps for 3-4 minutes following the last shot, and did not leave the steps UNTIL Gloria Calvery returned to the steps with the news of the assassination. And yet, miraculously, they testified to being 25 steps down the Elm St. extension when they looked back and saw Baker and Truly entering the TSBD.

Am I the only one to see a problem here? Were they outrageously lying, or did Baker not enter the TSBD immediately?

P.S.

"If so, then I gotta ask: Where's the other woman whom Molina said was with Calvery?"

If Molina met them inside the lobby, and did not see Gloria Calvery returning to the TSBD, how would he know if Gloria Calvery had returned to the TSBD alone, or in the company of another woman? She could have met up with the woman after she returned.

Remember, Thomas, we cannot read things into testimony that are not there.

Robert,

You covered this in your other topic:

Who saw Baker enter the TSBD?

I supplied this for you then.

If you can't find her in the corresponding areas, time/distance estimates are a moot point. imo

Find her first, then move on to time/distance.

chris

Thanks Chris.

Anyone wondering where the apparently dark-complected woman was when JFK was shot should look closely at the photo in the lower right corner of the montage. Blow it up. Find the "Stemmons Freeway Keep Right" sign. (Hint: It has a vertical blue line running through it. In fact, the blue line is running through Calvery's colleague, Carol Reed, in all three photos.) Look at the three women who are standing under that sign, and also note the two boys standing to the left of them wearing their special school or club jackets. The woman standing under the "T" in "RIGHT" is the apparently dark-complected woman we've been talking about. To the left of her is blond Karan Hicks, and to the left of Karan is tall, blue scarf wearing Carol Reed.

So the question remains: Did the apparently dark-complected woman have enough time to walk up the Elm Street sidewalk and get to the TSBD in time to encounter Joe Molina roughly when he said Gloria Calvery did?

I believe she did.

--Tommy

You're changing the subject again, Thomas. You're also asking us to assume that Gloria Calvery entered the TSBD as soon as she arrived at the steps, yet there is no evidence to support this. On the contrary, we have Lovelady's and Shelley's testimony telling us she remained on the steps for some time before entering the building. In other words, she could have RUN up the Elm St. sidewalk, almost on Baker's heels as seen in Darnell/Couch, and stayed on the steps to talk for a minute or two, thus making the meeting with Molina occur long after.

Let me guess, the woman is apparently dark complected, but you aren't convinced she actually is, right?

Wedding photo of Gloria Calvery, July 19, 1963; four months before the assassination. She would have been twenty years old in her wedding photo. Hard to reconcile the face with this woman:

I think the dark complected, dark haired woman traditionally ID'ed as Gloria Calvary looks nothing like Gloria Calvery, and that it is pointless to continue to pretend that she is Gloria Calvery.

How do we know that the woman seen running in the Darnell/Couch film approached from a different direction? Could she not have run up the Elm St. sidewalk and crossed the Elm St. extension just before the camera caught her, running just behind Baker?

My position on Calvery? She might have been watching the motorcade where she claimed she was, AND she may also be the woman seen running in Darnell/Couch. The question is, could she have covered that much ground in enough time to be seen running just behind Baker? Could Baker's time of 20 seconds from last shot until entering the TSBD have been altered to suit the 2nd floor encounter?

Something very strange happened on the front steps, and a lot of the stories told by the people on or near it just don't match up as, for instance, Gloria Calvery's, Bill Shelley's and Billy Lovelady's.

P.S.

I don't know who the dark complected woman was and, at this point, don't particularly care. I just know that she is not Gloria Calvery, despite the fact she may have passed the vaunted "waittress" test.

Totally irrelevant questions, Thomas, and also misleading.

The question on the table is, could Gloria Calvery have, after the final shot, run quickly enough up Elm St. to put her 10-15 feet behind Marrion Baker, as seen in the Darnell/Couch film?

Why couldn't the running woman in Couch/Darnell be Gloria Calvary?

In previous threads, I believe serious doubt has been cast upon the identification of a woman loitering down near the Stemmons sign post-assassination as being Gloria Calvery.

Linda turned up an interesting piece from FindaGrave concerning Gloria Calvery:

Immediately following the assassination she ran back to the TSBD, following about 10-15 feet behind the sprinting DPD Officer, Marrion Baker, and they went up the front steps and into the building, as was partially captured on the Cook-Darnell Film and recounted in eyewitness testimony:
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i286/niteprowler147/bl3_zps34f39e84.gif

In his Warren Commission testimony, a TSBD co-worker, Joe Molina, who had been positioned on the landing of the steps during the motorcade, stated he encountered a "horrified" Gloria Calvery in the entryway ~20-30 seconds after the final shot and she explained that she had seen the fatal head shot:

Mr. BALL. Do you know a girl named Gloria Calvary[sic]?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did Gloria come up?
Ms.. MOLINA. Yes, she came. I was in the lobby standing there and she came in with this other girl.
Mr. BALL. What did she say?
Mr. MOLINA. She said "Oh, my God, Joe, he's been shot." They were both horrified. I said "Are you sure he was shot?" She said "Oh, Joe ,I'm sure. I saw his hair fly up and I'm sure he was shot" something to that extent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be interesting to know who wrote this piece, and whether or not that person has taken liberties with the truth.

In the first paragraph, I would like to know whose eyewitness testimony placed Ms. Calvery 10-15 feet behind Baker as they approached the steps.

As to the second paragraph, Joe Molina's WC testimony does not state that Ms. Calvery was in the entryway 20-30 seconds after the final shot.

However, how far was it for Ms. Calvery to run up the Elm St. sidewalk to the steps? Could she have done it in just a few seconds longer than it took Baker to race his motorcycle to the sidewalk, park it and run up to the TSBD entrance?

I too have left those few seconds behind Stemmons open to possibilities. With no biased presupposition from having read beforehand any the multiple accounts of when which bullet hit who, or what, i had considered it pretty apparent that K is hit at least once behind the sign, or maybe just before it, because, you're right, he's already bringing his hands upward as they emerge - it also appears to me that he might be just beginning to raise his right arm, at least that we can see, more swiftly upward in reaction to a possible strike just before he goes behind the sign.

I haven't put a lot of thought or time into it as my interests are mostly focused elsewhere. But I surely haven't reached my own conclusion as to any millisecond timeline of Elm Street's events.

The other day i was looking at Z and it appeared to me that JC reacts physically to a second bullet strike, as well. I don't remember at which exact point it was, but at the point that he's already laid over on his wife and beginning to lean forward it appears to me that his forward motion seems to quickly speed up - and i think it's almost in time with one of the obvious K bullet strikes, but i can't remember. It made visual sense to me at the time, but i had had to move on to what i was doing (probably drifting off to sleep, since I just now remembered this).

correct me if i'm wrong, but the number and location of the wounds in C does not necessarily preclude him being hit by more than one bullet... [?] I'm aware he is known to only have 1 back wound [?], but ... i dunno, it's just something that appeared to me to be an odd second reaction...

I want to look more at the time lapse wrapped around the sign - it has nagged at me that there seems to be an awful lot of actions and sub-actions around that thing, both during the film and afterwards - the sign seems to want to lend itself directly to the mystery, as if it has its own secrets.

After all, it did abscond fairly well just after the crime...

there's also been talk of bullet strikes, or gunshots at least, up around zFrames 345ish...

things that make you go 'hmmm.'

Hi Glenn

Regarding Connally being hit a second (or third) time, I know exactly which frames you are referring to. This action begins at about frame z319, and we see Connally and his wife do their almost too rapid dive for the floor of the limo.

Are we witnessing a bullet strike, or is something else going on here?

If you study the frames closely, you can see that z319 is also the frame in which Greer and Kellerman begin their ead banging routine off of the dashboard of the limo. What a coincidence! Greer, Kellerman, Connally and Nellie all pitch forward at the same moment, as if someone has just slammed on the Lincoln's power brakes with their fancy aluminum front brake drums. Any of you that recall drive ford sedans from the early 60's will recall that Ford power brakes were the touchiest things going, and anti-lock braking systems had not even been thought of yet.

Not only did Greer slam the brakes on and stop the limo, he also swerved to the left and almost put Kellerman through the windshield. Like the large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, there were simply too many witnesses that saw the limo stop (and swerve) for anyone to seriously try to deny it occurred.

The REALLY strange thing, though, is that, while four of the limo occupants are getting pitched forward by the hard brake application, JFK and Jackie do not show the slightest reaction. It is almost as if these two are not in the same car as the other four.

Z film altered? ABSOLUTELY!!

Much better. Thank you. Wouldn't want to start a new conspiracy theory about JFK getting whacked by the Stemmons sign.

LOL...I just looked at the title and realized it sounds as if the Stemmons sign hit JFK. Could a moderator please change the word "by" for "near"?

As JFK emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, he can be seen to be reacting to what is obviously a bullet wound. Just after he emerges, his elbows can be seen to come up, and he almost lunges forward in his seat.

Is it possible he was shot twice in the space of a second or two?

Hi Tom

Sorry I took so long to reply.

1. Going solely on what Custer told the ARRB, there were reported to be, by Custer, many small fragments in the vicinity of C3/C4 vertebrae. This is in itself odd in the extreme, as I would expect even a soft nosed bullet, at that close range, to plough straight through the neck bones with not an outstanding amount of damage to the bullet. In other words, just the fact the bullet was stopped by the vertebrae is quite miraculous. If it then also broke up into tiny fragments after hitting only the vertebrae and stopping, it goes from being just miraculous to almost unbelievable.

That being said, take a look at these photos.

The first five bullets on the left can be ignored. They are tracer and armour piercing rounds for the 8x56r Steyr. The five cartridges on the right are for the 6.5x52 Carcano. The first three, from the left, are multi-ball "guard" rounds; low velocity cartridges that shoot a stack of balls like a shotgun. The fourth from the left is an armour piercing round and, on the extreme right, is the M37 "Magistri" frangible range bullet.

Looking at the closeup cutaway view of the frangible round, it is possible to see the construction of the bullet. Inside the two piece bullet jacket can be seen a small volume of sand in the base with a larger volume of powdered lead above that. In the nose can be seen a tiny pellet made from lead or maillechort.

The photo below shows another view of this bullet, and how the very tip of the nose jacket appears to have been left open.

I believe this tip was left open to allow the disintegration process to begin, once this bullet hit steel or concrete. While this is not a hollow point, it would take very little effort with a drill to turn it into one. This would make it identical to a modern lethal frangible bullet except, of course, that the modern frangible has a compressed metal powder core, while this bullet's core is powdered lead and sand. Still, though, if this bullet was able to penetrate the 1/4 inch thick human skull, I imagine the sudden disintegration in the brain would still cause a lot of damage.

Getting back to the throat wound, it is just possible this modified frangible bullet entered the throat and disintegrated when it hit the vertebrae, leaving the many small fragments (powdered lead and sand?) Custer saw at C3/C4. The small lead (maillechort) pellet in the nose could have remained intact, and ricocheted down into the right lung, puncturing the lung, collapsing it and causing a pneumothorax there.

2. I don't believe the damage is visible in the extant chest x-rays, purported to be those of JFK's.

P.S.

The cutaway views show there is substantially less gunpowder in the frangible cartridge than there is in the armour piercing cartridge beside it. As the frangible bullet was comprised partly of sand, it weighed much less than a standard FMJ bullet. The gunpowder was reduced in the frangible cartridge to slow this bullet down to the same velocity as a FMJ bullet.

Cherry picking evidence.

fantastic video of a 1200 ft/s gunshot/muzzle blast on a Phantom v2010 camera at >>> 73,000 frames per second. worth watching. (it's Adam and Jamie from MythBusters, good stuff).

i couldn't figure out how to embed it:

https://youtu.be/7y9apnbI6GA

Wow, amazing piece of film. It makes you wonder how a camera can take 73,000 frames per second, doesn't it.

(good thing they were using smokeless powder, eh?)

Oh Pat, how you like to leave out bits of information. Custer also told the ARRB that the x-ray he recalled seeing of JFK's neck was not in the x-rays he viewed.

According to Custer, the x-ray of the neck he saw showed many small fragments in the vicinity of C3/C4 vertebrae.

Geez, Robert. Custer told the ARRB he thought he'd made a number of x-rays that either never existed or are no longer in the archives. The question raised by Mantik is on the authenticity of the x-rays currently in the archives. He thought Custer was with him on this. He started quoting Custer on this 20 years ago. The problem is that Mantik, and the other researchers dealing with Custer, only showed Custer the cropped and computer-enhanced x-rays published by the HSCA. When shown the non-cropped, non-computer-enhanced originals (or presumed originals, if you will), by the ARRB, however, Custer spotted his personal marker on the x-rays, and said that yessirree these were Kennedy's x-rays, and not only that, but the supposedly 6.5 mm fragment was behind the right eye, where it was retrieved during the autopsy. In other words, he rejected Mantik's key findings.

So how did Mantik respond to this? He continued quoting Custer's earliest statements, in which he questioned the authenticity of the x-rays.

If an LN did this kind of thing--quoting a witness in support of his theories, without noting that that witness subsequently gave sworn testimony in opposition to his theories--you'd flip out. I know David a little. I don't consider him an enemy by any means. But when he routinely deceives his readers on this and other points, it makes me feel like someone needs to set things straight.

Geez, Pat, nice display of psycho babble. You've neatly skirted the fact that Custer distinctly recalled seeing an x-ray of JFK's neck showing many bullet fragments in the vicinity of C3/C4 vertebrae. Must be a sore point with the LN.

The extant x-rays, in particular the right lateral x-ray and the anterior x-ray showing the 6.5 mm metal piece, are frauds in my opinion.

The right lateral x-ray shows an absence of bone extending along the right and top sides of the skull and an absence of right front forehead bone. Jackie said that from the front, JFK didn't appear to be wounded. The Parkland docs did not describe damage corresponding to this x-ray. Autopsy photos do not correspond to this x-ray. That's all before I get to Mantik's analysis of the rear-skull depiction in this x-ray. I defer to Mantik; he's got a PhD in physics. Neither Randy Robertson nor any other medical expert who has examined this x-ray can lay claim to Mantik's knowledge of physics, which bears heavily on interpreting this x-ray. I go with Mantik.

As for the 6.5 mm metal piece depicted in the anterior x-ray, Humes said he never saw this item. Humes, who constructed a mighty fabrication, couldn't buy this lie; it was too far over the top for him. My understanding from Robert P. is that a frangible round wouldn't have deposited such a cross-section on the skull. My understanding from other writers is that a copper-jacketed round also wouldn't have deposited such a cross-section.

At the end of the day, neither of the two x-rays about which I write have any significance in the law. They are not evidence within the meaning of the law. They are mere films, asserted to have meaning.

Well, Jon, the frangible bullet would not leave a cross section of the actual bullet anywhere but, I'm not so sure what would become of the bullet jacket itself, especially when you consider any lethal frangible bullet in 1963 would have been a crude design, at the least. This is why I posted the photo of the 6.5mm Carcano M37 "Magistri" frangible range bullet. As I pointed out, the jacket of these bullets was made from two pieces that were joined just behind the nose, and many of these jackets also had a deep cannelure groove at about the point where the bullet was inserted into the casing. The section of jacket between the join and the cannelure might very well be the fragment seen in the x-ray, if it did indeed exist.

Oh Pat, how you like to leave out bits of information. Custer also told the ARRB that the x-ray he recalled seeing of JFK's neck was not in the x-rays he viewed.

According to Custer, the x-ray of the neck he saw showed many small fragments in the vicinity of C3/C4 vertebrae.