Michael Griffith

On 9/23/2023 at 3:25 AM, James DiEugenio said:

@Adam JohnsonIf you buy into those Rothmiller transcriptions about MM's diary, then you and I, and most others on this thread, have a big difference of what constitutes evidence and how to judge the credibility of an author.

How many different ways does one have to show that Rothmiller is full of it? You just ignore all that.  25 Nembutals and MM stayed alive for hours after? Did you skip how Don McGovern demolished the Rothmiller story about MM and JFK having dinner during the second night of the 1960 Democratic Convention, when in fact she was not even in California!

BTW here is a quote about that internal inquiry by OCID: "As with Capell, this lunacy was generally disregarded. But it also generated an internal investigation within the Los Angeles Police Department. Eventually, the department’s Organized Crime Investigation Division prepared a point-by-point refutation of Scaduto’s story, based on meticulous documentation and new interviews with Peter Lawford and Medical Examiner Thomas Noguchi. In an uncharacteristic literary smirk, the report turned a line from Scaduto against him: “The evidence is as thin as Depression-food-line soup.”

Then you link to his older book.  This is not about that book.  

 As many prosecutors have said, they dream about a motion picture case e.g. RFK being in Gilroy.  Well, the testimony of ten people, a series of pictures, and an FBI report, that is the kind of evidence they dream of. Your attempt to cast aspersions on John Bates and his family is, I think, unwarranted and underhanded.

Oh yes, if somehow you cannot find either of the Carroll reports online, abracadabra, they do not exist.  Is that what you are trying to say? Even though authors have read them and quoted from them?

Please Adam. 

One, you obviously have not read Rothmiller and Thompson's book, or you'd know better than to make the claims you're making. McGovern, an emotionally attached super fan of Marilyn Monroe who can't even admit she was severely promiscuous or that she had affairs with Bobby and JFK, did not "demolish" Rothmiller. You must be kidding, but I know you're not. 

Two, whenever you question someone's ability "to judge the credibility of an author," readers need to be aware that you still claim that the anti-Semitic fraud Fletcher Prouty was not only a credible source but an outstanding and brilliant source. The guy was a crackpot who spent years palling around with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, speaking at their conferences and on their radio shows and praising the Holocaust-denying IHR journal and having a book published by the Holocaust-denying IHR press. He made numerous bogus claims and many downright nutty, bizarre claims. See my latest reply in the thread "Why L. Fletcher Prouty's Critics Are Wrong." 

CE 843 is proof of fraud in the JFK autopsy evidence. CE 843 consists of three fragments that were supposedly removed from JFK's skull during the autopsy. However, these fragments look nothing like the fragments that Dr. James Humes said he removed from the skull and that appear on the autopsy skull x-rays. The 7x2 mm fragment is plainly visible on the AP x-ray, and it looks nothing like any of the fragments seen in CE 843. Moreover, Humes said he only removed two fragments, one 7x2 mm and the other 3x1 mm, not three.

For those few researchers who still believe that the largest fragment that Humes removed was the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray, CE 843 is equally problematic. The 6.5 mm object is perfectly round except for a neatly cut semi-circular notch on the bottom-right side (viewer's right). None of the three fragments in CE 843 looks like the 6.5 mm object, and no combination of those fragments could have formed the 6.5 mm object. The largest CE 843 fragment is roundish in its overall shape but it is not perfectly round; it has no semi-circular notch in it; and it has a virtually straight edge on the top-left side (viewer's left) that constitutes the fragment's longest side. 

Of course, we have known for years from multiple sets of OD measurements that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but was superimposed over the image of a small fragment in the outer table in the back of the head, and even Dr. Larry Sturdivan has acknowledged that FMJ bullets will not deposit fragments on the outer table of a skull when they strike the skull. 

I had forgotten about the serious problems with CE 843 until someone inadvertently reminded me of them in an exchange about the 6.5 mm object yesterday. My memory refreshed, I also recalled that Dr. David Mantik had discussed this issue in some of his writings. 

CE 843 is also HSCA JFK Exhibit F-258. 

In his essay "The JFK Autopsy Materials" (LINK), Dr. Mantik provides images of CE 843 and the AP skull x-ray, and he says the following about the problems posed by the exhibit:

          This is one of the most shocking contradictions in the entire case. The shape of the larger piece of metal is nothing like the supposedly identical piece seen on the X-rays. No measurements taken on this piece can explain its bizarre transformation in shape. Most likely, it is not the piece taken from the skull. Its origin is unknown.

          John Hunt has much better quality images, obtained from NARA. Incidentally, I saw only two, not three, fragments at NARA. The largest, however, bears no resemblance to the corresponding image on the X-rays. The larger piece shown here is pancake shaped and was 107 mg. On the other hand, the X-rays show a club shaped object on both X-ray views (see Figures 2 and 6 above). The studies done by the FBI on this object spectrographic analysis and neutron activation analysis required only a tiny amount at most, about 1 mg, according to one of the FBI experts. (p. 15)

3 hours ago, David Whelan said:

I strongly advise you all not to engage with Michael Griffith. He is a patronising pest. Don't give him what he wants, IE, attention. 

Oh, yeah, don't engage with someone who recognizes your theory for the embarrassing, nutty speculation that it is. Yeah, stay away from people who won't endorse your bizarre, paranoid theory.

Tell me, do you believe the Moon landings were faked, that 9/11 was an inside job, that a missile hit the Pentagon and not an airliner, that the WTC towers were brought down with controlled demolitions, that Churchill had FDR poisoned, that Princess Diana was assassinated by the Secret Team? Just curious. 

5 minutes ago, Norman T. Field said:

FWIW, MM's housekeeper swore RFK visited MM's home on the afternoon before MM died. 

Yes. The evidence that RFK was at Marilyn's house that day is strong enough that even Anthony Summers acknowledges that he was there, even though he is an ardent supporter of the official finding of "probable suicide." 

Yet, we have people in this thread who insist that Bobby was not even in LA at the time.

 

As chance would have it, yesterday I stumbled upon the video of an interview that Fletcher Prouty gave in 1994 (LINK). Some of Prouty's comments about Vietnam and about Chiang Kai-shek's war with the Japanese were utterly erroneous, but I won't spend time discussing them. But I do want to discuss Prouty's astounding claim that he flew Chiang Kai-shek and his delegation to Tehran for the Tehran Conference and that Chiang attended the conference (along with FDR, Churchill, and Stalin) after he attended the Cairo Conference (starts at about 44:45). 

I have been studying Chiang Kai-shek, the Sino-Japanese War, World War II (especially the Asian and Pacific theaters), FDR's handling of the war, and the post-war struggle for China for many years. When I came across Prouty's astounding claim that Chiang attended the Tehran Conference, I replayed the segment three times to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding him. I wasn't: He claimed that he flew Chiang and his delegation to the Tehran Conference and that Chiang attended the conference. 

Some of the problems with this claim:

-- Chiang's diary states that after he left the Cairo Conference, he returned to China. The Cairo Conference was held from 11/22/43 to 11/26/43. The Tehran Conference was held from 11/28/43 to 12/1/43. 

-- On his way home from Cairo, Chiang and his wife stopped at the U.S. Army's training center in Ramgarh, India, to inspect Chinese troops who were being trained there under General Stilwell's supervision. This visit occurred on 11/30/43 and was publicized. While there, Chiang addressed the Chinese troops. A copy of his address is in the Joseph Stilwell papers in the Online Archive of California (Collection A-22 1943, Box 50, Folder 9).

-- Gen. Stilwell, who attended the Cairo Conference, said that Chiang returned to China after the conference.

-- Not one of Chiang's biographers, friendly or critical, knew anything about Chiang attending the Tehran Conference.

-- The biographies of Chiang written by his first and second wives say nothing about Chiang attending the Tehran Conference. 

If Chiang had been able to be at the conference, even in an unofficial capacity to hold off-the-record talks with the attendees, this would have been a significant honor and would have made Chiang look more important. The fact that no friendly biography of him mentions his alleged presence at the Tehran Conference is telling.

-- Naturally, the Tehran Conference was swarming with journalists from all over the world. None of them spotted Chiang or his delegation at or near the conference.

-- Not a single Soviet or British official or unofficial record of the Tehran Conference mentions Chiang's attendance or presence.

-- Not a single U.S. State Department record of the Tehran Conference mentions Chiang as even being present, much less as being an attendee.

13 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

...... For example one member found Connally's lapel eversion at Z224.

The Z224 lapel flip is probably an optical illusion. Even if it is not, it has nothing to do with the shooting because the bullet exited at least 11 inches from the lapel and 2 inches below the right nipple. There was a strong wind gusting in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. If the lapel flip is real, it was most likely caused by a gust of wind.

However, ask yourself this: Is it physically possible for a lapel to flip up and then down in 1/18th of a second? Really?

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

I'm reporting what the trauma room surgeon said who worked on Lennon, i.e. "John Lennon was shot four times in his left front chest, with three bullets coming out of his left back - at close range.

He was murdered by a deranged fan of the Beatles. So the MSM reported, however in 1980 Chapman was a fan of Todd Rundgren.

Chapman was a nobody.  Yes, a low paid security guard who could afford to travel the world as well as stalk Lennon, flying from Hawaii to NY twice, once via Chicago staying in top hotels.

Sure, I agree with you, it's another open and shut case!  Chapman was there, witnessed by the doorman, and confessed to the killing.

So too was Sirhan, he was there in the pantry, shooting, in front of witnesses, killing a liberal anti-war advocate.  Sirhan had his mantra 'RFK Must Die'. Chapman's mantra was his Catcher in the Rye.

Michael, I don't have answers, but I certainly have questions.  As Jim Marrs wrote in my copy of Crossfire, 'Pete, always question authority'. 

Sometimes the official and/or MSM version of an event is correct. Not everything that is reported by the MSM is false. 

The idea that the MIC and/or the CIA assassinated John Lennon is just crazy. They had no conceivable motive, no reason to do so. The guy who shot Lennon admitted he shot him and explained why he shot him. Yes, this is "case closed." 

Can you imagine what your average educated person will think when they visit this forum as guests and see this kind of craziness taken seriously by members of the forum? 

On 9/25/2023 at 6:29 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Rothmiller used Fred Otash?

Oh no, then that seals it.  Otash was about as bad and amoral as they come. He made Spindel look like a decent guy.

Wait until you see what I have on him in my upcoming article  "Joyce Carol Oates, Brad Pitt and the Road to Blonde."

Now you're sounding like a WC apologist. Yes, of course Otash was bad and amoral. Many people who deal with or in the underworld and who agree to be informants are bad and amoral. Some of our most revealing accounts of CIA-Mafia cooperation and of CIA-Mafia involvement in JFK's death come from bad and amoral people. 

If Rothmiller's disclosures did not include information on JFK and RFK's serial adultery and on RFK's role in Marilyn Monroe's death, I suspect you would heartily welcome them, would acknowledge their importance, and would gladly recognize Rothmiller as one of the good guys. But, because Rothmiller's disclosures do include this information, you are determined to reject them and to discredit Rothmiller, and also to reject the Otash information in spite of the documentation that supports it. 

You would not be accusing Rothmiller of fabricating entries from Marilyn's diary if Rothmiller were not also revealing Bobby's role in Marilyn's death, nor would you so gullibly accept the Strasburg version of Marilyn's diary as "evidence" against Rothmiller's transcription of her diary.

And it bears repeating that, while you reject and attack Rothmiller, you continue to claim that the anti-Semitic crackpot Fletcher Prouty was a sterling, credible source. You even attack scholars with impeccable liberal credentials just because they have exposed Prouty's bogus claims, his nuttiness, and his anti-Semitic views. 

@Pat Speer

Let's read what Humes told the WC about the largest fragment that he saw and removed. He specified that it was "just above" the right eye:

          These [the x-rays] had disclosed to us multiple minute fragments of radio opaque material traversing a line from the wound in the occiput to just above the right eye, with a rather sizable fragment visible by x-ray just above the right eye. (2 H 353)

The 6.5 mm object is not above the right eye but is squarely within it on the AP x-ray. However, the 7x2 mm fragment is just an inch above the right eye. 

By the way, why is the EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail that Humes described to the WC, and in the autopsy report, nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays? There's no way he could have mistaken the fragment trail at the top of the head for a trail that started at the EOP and ended just above the right eye. So where is this low fragment trail that Humes described? Oh, that's right: you insist that the x-rays have not been altered.

Anyway, let's continue with Humes's WC testimony, in which he clearly identified the 7x2 mm fragment as the largest fragment that he saw and removed:

          SPECTER: When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye?

          HUMES: Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye. . . .

          SPECTER: How large was that fragment, Dr. Humes? 

          HUMES: . . . we found, in fact, two small fragments. . . . The larger of these measured 7x2 mm, the smaller 3x1 mm. (2 H 354)

Sibert and O'Neill's report supports Humes's account:

          During the autopsy inspection of the area cf the brain two fragments of metal were removed by Dr. Humes, namely one fragment measuring 7x2 millimeters which was removed from the right side of the brain. An additional fragment of metal measuring 1x3 millimeters was also removed from this area. (p. 4)

Importantly, the autopsy report notes that the two fragments were "irregularly shaped":

          Roentgenograms of this fragment reveal minute particles of metal in the bone at this margin Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic 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 right cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered These measure 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm. (p. 4)

The large roundish fragment in CE 843 is not irregular in shape. It's roundish with a virtually straight edge on its top-left side. The other fragment in CE 843 is nearly perfectly round but is much smaller than the larger roundish fragment. There is also a very tiny fragment, really a speck, in CE 843 that appears to be rectangular in shape. Obviously, no combination of these fragments would have formed the 6.5 mm object.  

Clearly, the fragments seen in CE 843 cannot be the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments described in the autopsy report, in the Sibert and O'Neill report, and in Humes's WC testimony. 

Your refusal to accept the OD measurements is both baffling and discrediting. OD measurement is a recognized science. Dr. Mantik uses OD measurements in his work as a radiation oncologist, and his background as a physicist makes him especially qualified to analyze the measurements. Dr. Chesser did his own OD measurements on the x-rays, and they confirmed Dr. Mantik's measurements. But you won't accept this historic development because you are determined to deny that any evidence was altered or planted.

Finally, we should keep in mind that Dennis David, who was an experienced Petty Officer First Class and a Navy corpsman at the autopsy, told the ARRB that one of the federal agents at the autopsy dictated to him a receipt that described "in some detail" the physical characteristics of four bullet fragments that "had been removed from the President's body" (ARRB interview, 2/19/97, p. 2) Petty Officer David handled the fragments and said he believed they consisted of more metal than a single bullet but less than two bullets (p. 2).

On 9/23/2023 at 3:38 AM, Pete Mellor said:

Speaking in 2011, Dr. David Halleran says John Lennon was shot four times in his left front chest, with three bullets coming out of his left back - at close range. Chapman was 25 feet behind Lennon.

Chapman was not 25 feet away. He was within 10 feet of Lennon when he opened fire. The autopsy report says Lennon was hit four times from behind, two in the back and two in the shoulder. 

This is all just crazy talk. Lennon was not "assassinated." He was murdered by a deranged fan of the Beatles. Chapman was a nobody. He confessed to the crime, for heaven's sake.

And, pray tell, what wild theory do you have about motive? Why would the supposed conspiracy that allegedly assassinated Lennon have wanted to assassinate him and then frame Chapman for the crime in December 1980?

22 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Congratulations. You're wearing me out, Michael. 

A couple of points, nonetheless. 

You start by stating "You are the one who keeps ignoring key facts, including the fact that (1) 27 medical experts have placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head"

My response: I think that number is inflated but nevertheless acknowledge as true that some "experts" have claimed the large fragment on the A-P is on the back of the head. What is bizarre, however, is that you keep stating this in defense of Mantik, who similarly claims the large fragment is NOT on the back of the head. (It appears you are confusing Mantik's claim a smaller fragment resides near the back of the head, and is overlapped by the large fragment on the A-P x-ray, with his stating the large fragment is on the back of the head. But this isn't true. His trip down this particular rabbit hole began when he realized it was not where it was purported to have been.)

You continue... "Humes himself said that the "largest fragment" he removed was the 7x2 mm fragment. So obviously the 6.5 mm object could not be the largest fragment that Humes removed." 

My response:  You're playing word games, perhaps unintentionally. Humes said he removed A 7 x 2 fragment; he never specified that what Latimer called and Mantik continues to call THE 7 x 2 fragment was that fragment. In fact, he claimed,. to the very end, that the 7 x 2 fragment he removed at autopsy was removed from behind the eye. And, oh yeah, by the way, he ultimately told the ARRB he thought the large fragment on the A-P x-ray was the fragment he removed at autopsy...from behind the eye. 

You conclude: "we have the largest fragment that Humes said he removed, and it looks nothing like the 6.5 mm object. It is not a perfect circle with a neat notch chipped from its bottom-right side. It is astounding that you continue to ignore this fact." 

My response: Horse feathers! Mantik himself claims the fragment in the archives is NOT the fragment he claims is the 7 x 2 fragment on the x-rays. Now, someone, little old me, decided to follow up on this, and see if he was correct. And I concluded he was. While looking into this, moreover, I studied the FBI photo uncovered by John Hunt of the this fragment before it was broken into pieces. And, holy smokes, it has a circular bite out of it, and could easily be the large fragment on the A-P x-ray. Objects on x-rays are not placed flat on a slide, so one has to imagine how it might appear from different angles, and the fragment in the FBI photo is consistent with the shape and size of the fragment on the x-ray.

P.S. While I'm lacking in many skills, I took an Armed Services test in high school and did quite well. Some of the questions involved mental rotation of images. A shape was presented, and you had to pick out which of a number of other shapes could be that shape if viewed from a different angle. My score was in the top percentile on these kinds of questions. And this whet a recruiter's appetite. I received call after call and letter after letter for months, offering me full scholarships to Harvard, Stanford, USC, etc, if only I joined the reserve and committed to two years as an officer. It was a full court press. A year later, while attending my local university, CSUN, I received a final last ditch effort from a new recruiter, who if I recall had just replaced the recruiter who'd been hounding me. In any event, this was a hand-written letter, filled with spelling errors and grammatical errors--something you might expect from a grade school kid. Finding it kinda sad, and not knowing how to respond, I showed it to my college English professor. She was shocked. She took it from me, and said she was gonna get to the bottom of it. And she did. As I recall, she contacted Senator Alan Cranston, who launched an investigation into why the Army (I think it was the army, but it could have been another branch) was writing sloppy hand-written letters to recruits. I believe the recruiter lost his position, which I've always felt a bit guilty about. I mean, I had no idea my English professor would have such a strong reaction, let alone the gumption to do something about it. 

The large fragment in evidence is not perfectly round with a neatly cut notch on the bottom-right side. That fragment can be seen in CE 843. Surely you can see that it is not perfectly round and does not have a notch neatly cut from the bottom-right side (viewer's right). We're not playing horseshoes here. The fragment is roundish but it is clearly not the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray, not to mention that multiple OD measurements, which you just keep ignoring, prove that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic.

Yes, I happen to agree that the large fragment in CE 843 does not look like the 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray, nor does it measure 7x2 mm. This is revealing because it is very hard to fathom how Humes could have mistaken that fragment for a 7x2 mm fragment. I suspect someone switched out the 7x2 mm fragment with the large fragment in CE 843.

When the ARRB asked Boswell about the 6.5 mm object, he said he was "sure" they did not find a fragment that large:

          We did not find one that large. I'm sure of that. (ARRB deposition, 2/26/96, p. 197)

When Finck was interviewed by the ARRB and was asked if he recalled seeing a fragment as large as the 6.5 mm object, he said, "I don't" (ARRB deposition, 5/24/96, p. 132).

Finck confirmed that there was a radiologist at the autopsy, Dr. Ebersole, and that it was his job to interpret the x-rays (p. 88). But according to you, even Ebersole "missed" the most obvious fragment-like object on the AP x-ray, even thought it is perfectly round except for a neatly cut notch in its bottom-right side, clearly proving that it is a manmade object.

(On a side note, Finck also confirmed that the rear head entry wound was in the occiput, and that he had photos taken of the exterior and interior of the wound [pp. 85-87]. Where are those photos?)

We've already noted that Humes likewise said he was certain that none of the fragments he removed was as large as the 6.5 mm object.

Humes did in fact identify the 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray as the largest fragment that he removed, not the slice that you have identified as the largest fragment.

Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole, not to mention the other doctors who could see the skull x-rays during the autopsy, would have had to be legally blind to miss the 6.5 mm object. They didn't miss it. It just wasn't on the x-rays during autopsy. That's why Humes was clear on the fact that the 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray was the "largest fragment" that he saw and removed. 

And anyone can readily see on the AP x-ray that the 6.5 mm object is about 1 inch below and to the right of the 7x2 mm fragment.

The three ARRB medical experts, the twelve HSCA medical experts (nine members and three consultants), and the four Clark Panel medical experts all placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, as you should know. So does Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Sturdivan. 

Finally, it is worth repeating that not a single expert who has examined the skull x-rays has identified your slice as a bullet fragment.

On 9/25/2023 at 6:24 PM, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

 

No SSA etc ever revealed that Hickey fired. One SSA said that the AR15 had not been fired (Floyd Boring). 

But we're not just talking about the other agents in the follow-up car. Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers were in that car. When O'Donnell revealed to Tip O'Neill that he had lied during his WC testimony and that he was certain some shots came from the grassy knoll, one would think that he would have also mentioned that one of the agents in the car fired his rifle if Hickey had in fact fired his rifle.

I have fired the AR-15 rifle many times. It is quite loud. When I fired the rifle in the Army, we were required to use ear plugs to protect our hearing. 

I cant  remember the details of Holland's ricochet theory, except that it was mostly silly, except that he was the first to realize that shot-1 had ricocheted offa the signal arm, at pseudo Z103 i think he said (i dont think he said Z132).

He says the first shot was fired during the 3-4-second gap between Z132 and Z133, or about 11.2-15.2 seconds before Z313. He puts the shooting time at 11.2 seconds, which means he's assuming the shot came a frame or two before Z133.

Also, we should keep in mind that even in this lone-gunman scenario, the gunman still would have had to go two for two in 5.6 seconds, something that not even the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test were able to do.

Firing when the 2" signal arm was possibly in the way was certainly silly, especially the two 3/4" guy rods & coupler (shot-1 hit a guyrod), especially the red yellow green signals & backboard. In 2013 Christopher who owns the original RYG signals & backboard confirmed that there is no bullet damage.

Well, yeah, if Oswald was half the rifleman that the WC claimed he was, he would not have fired with a metal pole intervening near JFK's upper body in his sight view, not to mention that the angle would have been virtually straight down. Even a gunman with minimal experience would not have fired at that time.

Another noteworthy fact that Rothmiller reveals in Bombshell is that he saw an LAPD OCID file that stated that 10 bullets were recovered from the shooting of RFK, and he notes that this was two more bullets than Sirhan's gun could have fired. Rothmiller testified about the OCID file and the 10 bullets in 1992 at a grand jury hearing.

Some here may be interested to know that Rothmiller also testified on behalf of the ACLU in its lawsuit against OCID's illegal spying, and he testified to the LA Police Commission about corruption in the LAPD and about OCID's illegal surveillance practices. His testimony led to the commission's first efforts to reform the LAPD. Rothmiller's 1992 book LA Secret Police led to another investigation by the LA Police Commission and caused more efforts at cleaning up the LAPD.

Rothmiller says that Marilyn's journal and OCID files showed that on the night of her death, she phoned Mexican actor and one-time lover Jose Bolanos. Rothmiller's transcription from Marilyn's journal says that she called Bolanos and told him she was going to hold a press conference and expose her affairs with RFK and JFK, and that Bolanos urged her not to do this and warned her that it would be dangerous. Years later, Bolanos admitted that he spoke with Marilyn that evening and that she told him something that he said would "shock the whole world," but he declined to reveal what it was. Support for Rothmiller's account also comes from Marilyn's hairdresser, Sidney Guilaroff, who reported that on the night of Marilyn's death, he spoke with her on the phone and that she told him she knew a lot of dangerous secrets about the Kennedys. 

In Rothmiller's postscript in the book, he mentions that before he saw Marilyn's diary and the OCID files on Marilyn's death, he was an admirer of JFK and RFK, and that a portrait of JFK still hangs in his house:

          I had always admired the Kennedys and was saddened when they were murdered. My wife and I purchased a portrait of President Kennedy in the 1970s and it is still on display in our home. President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy did a great amount of good for the country. Yet, in this situation, I was a detective and had to follow the evidence. So, personally, it was a painful investigation, but it had to be done. I wished the facts proved otherwise, but they didn't, and it saddens me. (p. 328)

Finally, the disclosures of RFK and JFK's affairs with Marilyn, RFK's role in her death, and JFK's possible foreknowledge and possible actions as an accessory after the fact (mainly just staying quiet and taking no action against Bobby)--these disclosures do not mean we must wholly repudiate and condemn RFK and JFK. 

Yes, these disclosures are a serious black mark on RFK's and JFK's legacies, especially on Bobby's. If they couldn't persuade Marilyn not to go public about their sexual affairs, then they should have faced the consequences of their actions, even it meant having to resign in disgrace, instead of killing her. 

But it also fair to point out that Marilyn was being unreasonable and was putting JFK and RFK in an extraordinarily difficult situation. She should have readily understood why JFK and RFK had to break off relations with her. She should have known that Bobby would never leave his wife and marry her (Bobby never should have made such a promise in the first place). Since she was interested in politics and followed international affairs, she should have known that revealing the national security information that JFK had foolishly shared with her would cause an international uproar and would damage America's image in the world. And she certainly should have understood that women who chose to sleep with powerful prominent men were expected to keep those affairs private. 

In the final analysis, RFK and JFK's actions in relation to Marilyn Monroe, as immoral and inexcusable as they were, must be weighed against the many good things that JFK and Bobby did for tens of millions of people, and not just for people in America but for people in many other parts of the world. Their actions regarding Marilyn Monroe were no excuse for the plotters to execute them. The plotters not only executed JFK and Bobby but also murdered dozens of people who, in their view, "knew too much" and "posed too great of a risk."

24 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

The dictabelt or whatever they used to hear gunshots didn't even pick it up  ^^^^^

Marjan and Holland both reject a conspiracy and both reject the acoustical evidence, so they don't care that the DPD dictabelt did not record a burst of semi-automatic gunfire from the follow-up car. 

And it boggles the mind to try to imagine how a bullet that glanced off the bottom of the guy rod could have sent a fragment streaking toward the Tague curb and also sent fragments toward the pavement behind the limousine that could have ricocheted upward and hit JFK in the back of the head (to account for the back-of-head fragments seen on the autopsy x-rays, since we know that no FMJ bullet would have deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull).

17 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Hickey's auto burst was from say Z305 to Z312, less than 0.5 sec. Hill was hitting the tarmac at Z305, & he was galloping & level with the front wheel of Queen Mary at Z312, hence he did not see or hear Hickey's auto-burst. 

The AR15 was near the centerline of Queen Mary, & no-one was in the way of the blasting, except JFK.

I have shown in other threads that the Bronson footage shows that Hickey had stood up, had fallen back, & was holding the AR15, at some of the critical times. Claims by others that the Bronson footage kills the Hickey theory have been shown to be wrong, by me. 

And the fact that nobody who was in the car with Hickey heard him fire his rifle? Were they all lying? O'Donnell spilled his beans to Tip O'Neill years later, revealing that he heard shots from the knoll, but even then he said nothing about Hickey firing his rifle. AR-15s are rather loud. If Hickey had fired his, everyone in his car would have heard it.

Holland's "first-shot" ricochet theory is far fetched. Holland apparently never stopped to consider that firing a shot before Z133 would have required a virtually straight-down angle of fire. Frazier explained that even a shot fired at Z161 from the sixth-floor window would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees. A sixth-floor gunman firing during the 3-4-second gap between Z132 and Z133, as Holland theorizes, would have had to fire at an even sharper downward angle, practically straight down.

And why in the world would any sixth-floor gunman have fired at JFK when the traffic signal's guy arm was close to JFK in his field of view/sight view? It just makes no sense.

On 9/22/2023 at 8:59 PM, Pat Speer said:

I started to read this but had to quit. Sorry. You keep denying obvious truths. Humes said he removed the largest fragment from behind the eye. There is a fragment behind the eye on the lateral x-ray that matches the location and size of the fragment on the A-P. This fragment is consistent, moreover, with the size and shape of the fragment retrieved at autopsy, as first photographed by the FBI. So it's not really the mystery some pretend it is. 

And yes, they pretend. A certain person who's examined the fragment in the archives has stated that it is not the fragment apparent in the middle of the forehead on the x-rays, but nevertheless tells his audience that the fragment removed at autopsy was the fragment in the middle of the forehead. He makes out it's been switched. But it's worse than that. He never tells his audience that the fragment removed at autopsy was removed from behind the eye because then...then...maybe someone would look on the lateral x-ray and see exactly what I saw: a fragment matching the location and size of the large fragment on the A-P x-ray.

You are the one who keeps ignoring key facts, including the fact that (1) 27 medical experts have placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, and (2) that Humes himself said that the "largest fragment" he removed was the 7x2 mm fragment. So obviously the 6.5 mm object could not be the largest fragment that Humes removed. 

You also keep ignoring the OD measurements. Those measurements, done separately by Mantik and Chesser, prove that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. That fact alone refutes your bizarre, amateurish arguments. 

You also keep ignoring the fact that both Humes and Boswell said that not one of the bullet fragments they saw on the x-rays during the autopsy were as large as the 6.5 mm object. And they were not the only ones looking at the x-rays. Ebersole, the radiologist, was there, and he never said a word about seeing the object.

Here is what Dr. Mantik says about the object that you identify on the lateral x-rays as the partner image for the 6.5 mm object:

          The so-called “slice” that Speer identifies on the lateral X-ray (my Figure 4) is the ultimate “boner” (Speer himself introduced this pun—see p. 18). No expert has ever identified that site as a piece of metal. Even Speer, if he had viewed the extant X-rays, would not have made such a blooper. The discussion that follows from his misidentification should just be ignored—totally. 

          The reader should simply ask himself a simple question: Who is more likely to be correct—an amateur who has viewed only prints or zillions of experts, who have seen the X-rays? It is true that phrases (some by Humes, but others have contributed, too—see pp. 24-26) have imprecisely located the 7x2 mm fragment (Speer’s club), but the bottom line is simple: despite the semantic fog, there is really only one large metallic fragment under discussion--and it’s not the “slice” cited by Speer. His “slice” is just a bone spicule, certainly not metal. It has nothing to do with the case, except that it might have resulted from trauma. The only authentic large metal fragment involved in the autopsy is the 7x2 mm one (identified in my Figures 1 and 2), which Humes removed. Speer might also want to read again his own quotes from Humes (p. 25), about the 6.5 mm object: “I can’t be sure I see it in the lateral at all, do you?” And this one too: “I don’t remember retrieving anything of that size.” ("Speer Critique," p. 13, https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf)

Regarding your claim that Dr. Mantik does not locate the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, he notes, as I have, that you are misrepresenting his position:

          Speer claims that I insist the 6.5 mm object is not visible on the back of the head. This is scarcely an accurate portrayal of my work. On the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that the location of OTF (on the lateral X-ray) correlates extremely well with the 6.5 mm object on the AP X-ray. So do virtually all experts who have viewed these films. The real issue is slightly, but seriously, different: Are the ODs of this thing consistent from one view to another? That answer is clearly, “No,” as even the ARRB experts readily emphasized. But Speer is relentless—he then also takes Horne to task for misrepresenting the situation. Somehow, though, Speer has still missed the point—it’s all about the inconsistent ODs, not the 3D coordinates (which do match). ("Speer Critique," p. 14)

There is a fragment behind the eye on the lateral x-ray that matches the location and size of the fragment on the A-P. This fragment is consistent, moreover, with the size and shape of the fragment retrieved at autopsy, as first photographed by the FBI. So it's not really the mystery some pretend it is. 

As Mantik observes, not a single expert who has studied the x-rays has identified that object as a bullet fragment. Not one.

Plus, we have the largest fragment that Humes said he removed, and it looks nothing like the 6.5 mm object. It is not a perfect circle with a neat notch chipped from its bottom-right side. It is astounding that you continue to ignore this fact.

@Eddy Bainbridge

Here is a free five-minute sample of the audio book of Bombshell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5X7bnJKvA

A few points to keep in mind:

-- We actually have the notes that Rothmiller wrote while he was reading Marilyn's diary. Portions are reprinted in Rothmiller and Thompson's book. Some of the notes are on the back LAPD documents. When Rothmiller was able to quote the diary, i.e., to write down verbatim what he was reading in the diary, he did so. When he could not do so, he would write down what he had read as soon as possible after he had read it.

-- Rothmiller used Otash as an informant. He interviewed Otash before deciding to use him as an informant.

-- When Rothmiller interviewed Otash, Otash told him what he heard on the surveillance recordings from Marilyn and Lawford's houses. The account that Otash gave to Rothmiller of what he heard on the tapes closely resembles the account that Lawford gave to Rothmiller when he confessed to Rothmiller in 1982. 

-- Thompson was able to confirm many parts of Rothmiller's story by interviewing former LAPD officials and other sources.

-- About 10 years ago, 11 boxes that Otash had kept in a storage unit were made available by Otash's daughter for review by The Hollywood Reporter. Notes found in the boxes include an account that confirms that RFK was in Marilyn's home on the day she died and that Bobby and Marilyn had a fierce argument. Here is a news account of the release of the boxes:

          Eleven boxes of recently uncovered documents and notes expose, among previously mentioned scandals, a confrontation between Robert F. Kennedy, JFK’s brother-in-law Peter Lawford, and Monroe on the day Monroe died. Otash’s daughter Colleen gave these boxes to The Hollywood Reporter in hopes that the distorted interpretations of her father’s life would be righted.

          Otash’s notes also detail his time spent as contracted security for actress Judy Garland in which he discovered caches of drugs in her homestead. (https://www.sacurrent.com/arts/fred-otashs-noir-sex-murder-and-hollywood-confessions-2253889)

-- Otash's notes found in the boxes also confirm that he installed listening devices in Marilyn's home and in Lawford's home, and that he heard JFK and Marilyn engaging in sexual activity. On a side note, the Otash materials include a transcript of Rock Hudson's wie confronting him over being a homosexual.

-- According to Otash, and according to what Rothmiller saw in OCID files, Bobby called JFK at least once on the day Marilyn died, and JFK asked Bobby to call him back after he met with Marilyn. Thus, it is entirely possible that JFk was aware of Bobby's role in Marilyn's death.

Finally, the disclosures about Bobby's role in Marilyn's death do not automatically prove that Bobby and JFK were cold-blooded murderers. This is not to excuse what Bobby did, but it is fair point out that Marilyn was going to not only reveal her affairs with the two brothers but was also going to reveal national security secrets that they had (recklessly) shared with her. She was going to reveal, for example, JFK's desire and intent to assassinate Castro. This revelation alone would have had created an international firestorm. 

Two other people who claim they heard the Otash tapes of Bobby and Marilyn's confrontations that day claim that Bobby pointed out to Marilyn that he and JFK had to stop seeing her because they feared what J. Edgar Hoover would do, that seeing her again could be dangerous for him and JFK. But Marilyn did not care about any of this. 

Marilyn, understandably, felt used and exploited, like she'd been passed around as a toy and was now being cast aside. She also felt betrayed because Bobby had told her that he was going to divorce his wife and marry Marilyn. 

But surely Marilyn should have known that it was an understood unwritten rule that if you were going to play around with powerful people, you would keep this activity to yourself and would never reveal it as long as it could harm any of those people.  

Again, this is not to excuse what Bobby did and JFK's possible foreknowledge and possible role as an accomplice after the fact. Bobby should have been prosecuted for his role in Marilyn's death, and he should have spent at least 10 years in jail for it. And if JFK did in fact have foreknowledge and/or act as an accomplice after the fact, he should have been prosecuted and spent a few years, perhaps five years, in jail.

The accounts of Dr. James Young and x-ray tech Jerrol Custer are not the only accounts of a bullet/large fragment at the autopsy that WC apologists must dismiss with the lame claim that they were mistaken or lying, even though Young's account was corroborated by Chief Mills and even though Young and Custer had no conceivable motive for lying.

We also have the account of Captain David Osborne, who was Chief of Surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and attended the autopsy. During the HSCA investigation, then-Admiral Osborne told HSCA investigators that when JFK's body was lifted from the coffin and placed on the autopsy table, an intact bullet fell out of JFK's clothing and onto the autopsy table. 

The HSCA pathology panel's report claimed that Osborne expressed doubt about his account after being told that JFK's body did not arrive clothed but was wrapped in sheets and that no one else at the autopsy recalled seeing a bullet at the autopsy. But when David Lifton interviewed Osborne, Osborne rejected the panel's claim. Notes Dr. Donald Thomas,

          When author David Lifton located and interviewed Admiral Osborne, now the Deputy Surgeon General, he was given a different version of the conversation. Osborne denied ever having expressed doubts to the Committee's investigators about seeing the bullet. On the contrary, he had not only seen the bullet, but had held the projectile, which he described as an "intact bullet," "not deformed in any way," in his hands. Osborne maintains that the bullet was taken by Secret Service agents (perhaps thus explaining the evening time on Johnsen's receipt). Osborne related that when he spoke to the Committee's investigators he only admitted to being mistaken about the bullet falling out of the President's clothing.85 If the President was wrapped in a sheet, then he had seen the bullet fall out of a sheet, not clothing. (Hear No Evil, p. 406)

So Osborne, then a Navy Captain and the Chief of Surgery at the hospital, actually handled the bullet. Are we to believe that Osborne actually only handled the two tiny fragments that Humes removed from JFK's skull and misrecalled them as a bullet when interviewed by the HSCA? Then what did he see fall onto the autopsy table? He said he handled the bullet that fell onto the autopsy table. 

Similarly, Dr. Young inspected the bullet that was found in the limousine by two Navy corpsmen, and one of those corpsmen, Chief Mills, confirmed that he found the bullet in the rear of the limousine. 

As for the receipt for a "missle" recovered at the autopsy and the dubious explanation that the receipt was referring to a few tiny slivers, one can only wonder why the receipt was excluded from the WC volumes. The autopsy report says a receipt for the two fragments removed by Humes was attached to the report, but the "missle" receipt was not only not attached to the autopsy report, it was not even included in the WC volumes but was buried in the National Archives. Harold Weisberg learned of the receipt's existence in 1966, but it took him three years and a FOIA submission to get a copy of it. 

Now why was this receipt excluded from the WC volumes and only released after a FOIA submission? Furthermore, when asked about the receipt by the HSCA, over a decade after the fact, Sibert and O'Neill said they thought it referred to the two tiny fragments that Humes removed from JFK's skull, i.e., the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments. So two tiny slivers were a missile? 

Dr. Thomas makes some good points about the receipt:

          That being the case it is difficult to imagine what sort of document could be more suggestive of the presence of a bullet at the autopsy than a receipt for a "missle"[sic] recovered at the autopsy. The existence of the receipt was discovered in 1966 and then obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by critic Harold Weisberg in 1969. The two FBI agents responsible for taking possession of evidence at the autopsy, James Sibert and Francis O'Neill signed the receipt addressed to Commander R.H. Stover, which states: 

          "We hereby acknowledge receipt for a missle removed by Commander James J. Humes MC, USN on this date."

          Notably, the receipt states that the "missle" was "removed" by Humes, as if it were removed from the body. The FBI agents, when queried about the meaning of this receipt by the HSCA, maintained that the receipt referred to the two tiny slivers of metal recovered from the President's brain. The Assassinations Committee was prepared to accept this explanation, without comment, and pretend that there were no documents to indicate the presence of a bullet at the autopsy. According to the official autopsy report and the testimony of the chief autopsy surgeon James Humes, there were only two fragments of metal removed from President Kennedy. The FBI report also specified, 

          "During the autopsy [and} inspection of the area of the brain, two fragments of metal were removed by Dr. HUMES, namely, one fragment measuring 7 x 2 millimeters, which was removed from the right side of the brain. An additional fragment of metal measuring 1 x 3 millimeters was also removed from this area, both of which were placed in a glass jar containing a black metal top which were thereafter marked for identification and following the signing of a proper receipt were transported by bureau agents to the FBI Laboratory."

          It is the opinion of this author that a receipt for "a missle" is not a proper receipt for two tiny slivers of metal. Furthermore, the FBI spectrographic report indicates that four pieces of metal, not two, were recovered at the autopsy -- at least, they tested four pieces of metal supposedly recovered at the President's autopsy. Moreover, Sibert and O'Neil insist that they did not type the receipt, but rather it was typed by hospital personnel. (Hear No Evil, pp. 405-406)

You would think that at some point, sooner or later, deep in their minds, even WC apologists would have to say to themselves, "Wait a minute. ALL of these credible witnesses could not have been 'mistaken.' How would anyone handle two tiny fragments and ever describe them as an undamaged bullet or as a misshapen bullet? This just don't seem reasonable. It seems mighty unlikely that ALL of these people were mistaken or lying." 

Here is an interesting interview with Doug Thompson about the book:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRjBkdAZsek

A few points about Marilyn's death:

-- Eunice Murray, Marilyn's housekeeper, confirmed to the BBC in 1985 that RFK was at Marilyn's house on the day of the murder.

-- Murray also admitted that she found Marilyn lying on the floor, not face-down on the bed.

-- Strangely, Murray disappeared soon after Marilyn's death, somehow came into money, and took an extended vacation in Europe, conveniently making her unavailable for questioning.

-- Marilyn's hairdresser, Sydney Guilaroff, said that late in the afternoon on the day of her death, Marilyn called him and told him that Bobby Kennedy had been at her house and that he had threatened her.

-- Marilyn’s body was found with her legs stretched out perfectly straight, which is extremely unusual for people who overdose on sedatives. 

-- It turns out that Pat Newcomb, Marilyn's publicist, was the Kennedys' and the FBI's spy in Marilyn's circle of friends. She regularly reported on Marilyn's statements and actions to them, though it is unclear if she shared the same amount of information with both parties.

-- Soon after Marilyn’s death, Newcomb went to, of all places, the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, where she was photographed on a yacht with members of the Kennedy family, and then she, too, like housekeeper Murray, went to Europe on an extended vacation.

-- The first LAPD officer who, officially, arrived at the house said the scene clearly looked staged. He saw signs of liver mortis that proved her body had been moved. Marilyn's two doctors and housekeeper were acting suspiciously. Dr. Greenson flushed pills down the toilet. When the detective asked them why they had waited some four hours to report Marilyn's death, they offered the dubious tale that they had first called the Fox studio offices. For four hours? Why would two doctors waste four hours talking to studio executives instead of immediately calling the police?

BTW, in the book and in some of his interviews, Rothmiller discusses the CIA's penetration of the LAPD, including CIA penetration of the LAPD's OCID. In some of interviews, Rothmiller also discusses CIA corruption in the covert operation to arm anti-communist fighters in Nicaragua. Also, Rothmiller doesn't buy the official story about RFK's death. 

Again, Rothmiller is one of the good guys. His disclosures, though disturbing, shed important light on JFK and RFK, CIA operations, CIA penetration of a major police department, and how wiretapping and bugging were being used as weapons by intelligence agencies and the Mafia, among other issues. And his disclosures may very well give us a better understanding of the plotters' motives. The plotters could have just destroyed JFK and RFK by publicizing their serial adultery, but instead they chose to publicly execute JFK and RFK.

James DiEugenio vs. Fred Litwin.

John Newman vs. Marc Selverstone or Mark Moyar

 

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The Navy Corpsman who wrote the memo that said "missle" [sic] was definitely mistaken. Even BOTH of the FBI agents think he was wrong/mistaken, and they've said so in various interviews over the years.

"There was no large bullet of any kind there at Bethesda during this autopsy that was found." -- James W. Sibert; June 30, 2005

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / 2005 Interview With James Sibert

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / 1979 Interview With Francis O'Neill

 

You bet. So Boyers, who was an experienced Chief Petty Officer (E-7) and the NCOIC of the hospital's Pathology Department, looked at a few tiny fragments, the largest of which would have been the 7x2 mm fragment, and for some inexplicable reason described them as a missile. I spent 21 years in the Army, and "missile" always meant "bullet" in reference to ammo.

Do you know how small 7 x 2 mm is? It's 0.27 inches x 0.07 inches, or 1/4th inch in length x 7/100th inch in width. That's a sliver, and that was the largest of the few fragments. Why would anyone use the term "missile" to describe a few tiny fragments?

When the HSCA asked Boyers about this, he merely said he'd made a mistake. He didn't explain how he could have "mistaken" a few tiny fragments for a bullet, and why he didn't specify the number of fragments that were being transferred to Sibert and O'Neill. And, sadly, his HSCA interviewer did not press him on his odd answer. I would have asked, "Wait a minute, why did you describe a few tiny fragments as a missile? Have you ever described a few miniscule fragments as a bullet in other memos or reports? Why didn't you specify the number of fragments that were found and were being receipted to the FBI agents?"

I suspect that Sibert and O'Neill may not have even bothered to read the memo but signed it perfunctorily. They may not have been aware that a bullet had been found, nor would they have necessarily been aware of the large fragment that Jerrol Custer saw fall from JFK's back while x-rays were being taken. 

Anyway, find me a single military or FBI document where a few tiny fragments are described as a missile or a bullet. Let's see just one such document. If you're involved in a murder case and you are transferring bullet fragments found in the autopsy, you are at least going to specify the number of fragments, if not also the dimensions of each fragment. 

Finally, I will just note again that you are now not just saying that Young was mistaken but that he may have lied, even though Chief Mills confirmed his account, even though Young accepted the lone-gunman story, even though Young clearly believed that the bullet he had seen was one of the shots acknowledged by the WC, and even though he only contacted Ford and Specter after he realized that the bullet was not mentioned in the Warren Report. 

18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Pat’s comments in his response that I am answering are in bold. My answers are in regular text. His and my previous comments from an earlier exchange are in brackets.

No, sorry. It is your motives that are to be questioned. Whenever I've pointed out Mantik's errors, someone has come out of the woodwork to attack. This same thing would happen on the McAdams Forum whenever I pointed out Lattimer's errors. Fanboys will be fanboys.

Your arguments against Mantik's research are erroneous, sometimes bordering on embarrassing. It is especially puzzling that you reject his historic OD measurements, even though OD measurement is an established science, even though he uses OD measurements in his work as a radiation oncologist, and even though Dr. Chesser has independently confirmed the measurements.

[Me: First off, the fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-rays does **not** match the location of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray.]

What in the world are you talking about? You can't be serious. It is a 100% match. As proven on the slides above... Mantik knows this moreover because he matched up the AP and Lateral x-rays on a slide--with the arrow matching up the location for the so-called 6.5 mm fragment--and it passed right through the fragment behind the eye.

No, you can't be serious. What about the obvious vertical misalignment??? Do you not understand that a fragment cannot be a companion image for another fragment if it does not align both horizontally and vertically with the other fragment?

The fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-rays is the 7x2 mm fragment seen on the AP x-ray. What??? Once again, go back and look at my slides. What Lattimer et al have called the 7 x 2 fragment is NOT behind the eye. It is INCHES away, in or on the middle of the forehead.

I meant that the 7x2 mm fragment is behind the right eye horizontally, not vertically. Yes, of course, I can see that the 7x2 mm fragment is above the right orbit.

[Me: You keep ignoring the all-important, determinative fact that on the AP x-ray the 6.5 mm object is below and to the right of the 7x2 mm fragment. You cannot tell me with a straight face that you can't see this on the AP x-ray. Here's a copy of that x-ray with the two objects' locations noted by arrows: LINK.]

No. I'm not ignoring anything. You are the one ignoring the obvious fact that the fragment on the forehead is NOT behind the right eye.

Let's back up and note some key facts:

-- Humes said he removed the largest fragment.

-- Humes said that the large fragment he removed was 7x2 mm.

-- The AP x-rays proves that 7x2 mm fragment is plainly and self-evidently not the same fragment as the 6.5 mm object.

So your claim that the 6.5 mm object is the largest fragment that Humes said he removed is simply impossible.

[Me: Look at it, Pat. The 6.5 mm object and the 7x2 mm fragment are two different objects. A child can see this.]

Yes, and a child can see that what has been called the 7 x 2 fragment is NOT behind the right eye. Lattimer ASSUMED this was the fragment removed at autopsy. Mantik examined the fragment in the Archives and said it is not this fragment. It follows then that the fragment removed at autopsy was not the forehead fragment. So where did it come from? Well, geez, maybe just maybe...from behind the right eye...

Again, you are markedly misrepresenting Dr. Mantik's research. He most certainly does not say that the 6.5 mm object was the largest fragment that Humes removed. He says the exact opposite. He's made it clear that the 7x2 mm fragment was removed during the autopsy:

          In January 1968, the Clark Panel [1] released its long-awaited review of the President John F. Kennedy (JFK) autopsy. That report described an apparent 6.5 mm cross section of a bullet fragment that lay inside JFK’s right orbit on the anterior-posterior (AP) X-ray (Figures 1 and 2). Curiously, despite the fact that it was (by far) the largest apparent metal fragment on this X-ray, it had not been described in the autopsy report. Furthermore, it had not been removed during the autopsy, even though the sole point of the autopsy X-rays had been to locate and to collect (for forensic purposes) precisely such objects. . . .

          Figure 1. JFK’s AP X-ray from the autopsy. The vertical arrow identifies the 6.5 mm object, which was not seen at the autopsy. The horizontal arrow identifies the 7 x 2 mm metal fragment, which was removed at the autopsy. . . .

          Figure 1. JFK’s AP X-ray from the autopsy. The vertical arrow identifies the 6.5 mm object, which was not seen at the autopsy. The horizontal arrow identifies the 7 x 2 mm metal fragment, which was removed at the autopsy. . . . (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, pp. 19-20)

And note this statement:

          There is wide agreement that the partner image (on the lateral X-ray) of this mysterious 6.5 mm object must appear at the rear of the skull (near the cowlick area—Figure 2). (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, pp. 19-21)

Did you catch that? The partner image "MUST" appear at the rear of the skull. Why? Because the 6.5 mm object is in the rear of the skull. Although Dr. Mantik occasionally, for the sake of easy reference, says it is “inside JFK’s right orbit” or “within the right orbit,” he makes it clear elsewhere that this verbiage does not mean the object is actually in the right orbit but only that that’s where you can see it on the AP x-ray. If the 6.5 mm object were actually located in/near/just behind the right orbit, there would be no reason that the companion image would have to be at the rear of the skull. I just can't understand how you can't, or won't, grasp this obvious point.

[Me: And Humes said he removed the largest fragment, which he specified was the 7x2 mm fragment.]

Yes, he measured A fragment as 7 x 2, but he retrieved this from behind the eye. There is no reason to assume he was referring to the fragment pointed out by Lattimer, which Mantik describes as 7 x 2.  Humes insisted till the end that the largest fragment was found behind the eye. Was he lying?

 

Now let’s think about this. Let’s stop and think. You are saying that the largest fragment that Humes removed was the 6.5 mm object, which is absurd and impossible. We have the largest fragment that Humes removed. It was entered into evidence. It looks nothing like the 6.5 mm object. Anyone, even a child, can look at the AP x-ray and see how different the 6.5 mm object and the 7x2 mm fragment look.

Let's read what Dr. Aguilar and RN Cunningham say on this point:

          For example, during his Warren Commission testimony, Humes took pains to explain the importance of extracting bullet evidence. And he was equally, if unintentionally, clear that he did not see the object that would today immediately draw the eye of any layman, to say nothing of a pursuing pathologist or radiologist. Humes told the Warren Commission that the X-rays revealed, “30 or 40 tiny dust like particle fragments of radio opaque material, with the exception of this one I previously mentioned which was seen to be above and very slightly behind the right orbit [bony eye socket]... .”[365] (emphasis added) The “one” he’d previously mentioned was the 7 x 2-mm fragment, which is visible in the X-rays to this day just where he said he saw it: above and very slightly behind the right orbit. In other words, he apparently didn’t see the far more obvious fragment that was visible smack dab “in the middle” of the orbit, or eye socket. Instead, he went after one less than half its size, and one that was above the orbit. . . .

          Given his apparently misdirected zeal, Humes ironically told the Commission that his goal was to land the big one. “(We performed) a careful inspection of this large defect in the scalp and skull...seeking for fragments of missile … .”[366] And, “(we tried to) seek specifically this fragment (the 7x2-mm anterior fragment) which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it. (sic).”[367] The far larger, and so more recoverable, fragment in the rear was embedded in the outer table of the skull. It would have been but the work of a moment to fetch it. (https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm)

[Pat: The doctors said as well that they removed some smaller fragments from right next to this large fragment.]

[Me: Yes, and "this large fragment" is the 7x2 mm fragment. I already quoted Humes explaining to the ARRB that the 6.5 mm object was much larger than any of the fragments he removed. The autopsy report says he removed two fragments, 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm, and says nothing about a 6.5 mm fragment. Humes could not possibly have missed the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray if it had been there during the autopsy.] 

There are a lot of problems with this. One is that Humes said he'd retrieved a 7 mm fragment. Well, this proves that a "6.5. mm" fragment would not be too large. As far as precision... 6.5 mm vs. 7 mm or whatever... you must know that one can not measure bullets or bullet fragments off x-rays, unless one knows exactly where the fragment is located, and even then it's inexact. The front of JFK's skull was magnified 20% compared to the back of his head on the A-P x-ray. Humes was not a radiologist and probably failed to realize this...when looking at the x-rays...decades later. 

 

This is absurd. Again, the AP x-ray shows that the 6.5 mm object and the 7x2 mm fragment would have looked nothing like each other at the autopsy. The 6.5 mm object is much larger and much different in shape. I know you can see this.

[Pat: There are small fragments next to the fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-ray.

[Me: Yes, and the fragment behind the right eye is the 7x2 m fragment. The 6.5 mm object is in the outer table of the skull on the back of the head, as 27 experts have confirmed, including all members of the Clark Panel, the HSCA medical panel, and the ARRB medical panel.]

What??? You can't have it both ways. You can't hide behind the Clark Panel's nonsense and pretend there's a 6.5 mm fragment on the back of the head, while defending Mantik's claim there is no such fragment and that the fragment on the A-P was added in a darkroom. The fragment on the back of the head story is a hoax. Mantik and I agree on that.

Well, first off, I do not "pretend there's a 6.5 mm fragment on the back of the head." How in Gotham City do you not understand that I agree with Dr. Mantik that there is no such fragment on the back of the head? How? There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment on the back of the head, as Dr. Mantik has proved, but that fragment is slightly shorter and much thinner than the 6.5 mm object (and lies within the object).

You say you agree that the 6.5 mm object is a hoax, but, as always, you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge evidence of forgery and alteration, so you float dubious innocent explanations. You claim the object is either an acid drop or a stray disk.

[Pat: Lattimer claimed the large fragment removed at autopsy can be seen on the x-rays...inches away...in the middle of the forehead. Wecht et al followed his lead. As did Mantik...]

[Me: You are simply ignoring facts that refute your argument and just keep repeating your argument. Again, Mantik has made it crystal clear that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. Again, for the umpteenth time, and as Mantik has repeatedly noted, this is why it is such a big deal that the lateral x-rays contain no companion image (in the back of the head or anywhere else) for the 6.5 mm object.] 

Yikes. Mantik does not believe the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P is on the back of the head. Heck, he believes there was no skull where that fragment would be located.

You again misrepresent Mantik's position. He most certainly does say that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head, which is why it is so damning that there is no companion image for the object in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays. See above where Mantik says the partner image "MUST" appear in the rear of the skull on the lateral x-rays but does not. He makes this point over and over in his writings, but somehow you seem to have missed or, or are ignoring it.

It appears you are confused by the nature of x-rays. One CAN NOT determine the location of a fragment from one view. That is why they take multiple views.

Giggles and LOL. Right, which is why Dr. Mantik notes that the lateral x-rays should show a partner image for the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray, and that that partner image should be in the back of the head. This is also why he has said that the forgers’ placement of the object in vertical alignment with the small back-of-head fragment made the forgery hard to detect.

[Pat: But there are no small fragments adjacent to this forehead fragment.]

[Me: Oh, come on. There is only one fragment near the 6.5 mm object, and that is the McDonnel fragment. There are fragments inside the 6.5 mm object, but only one near it, and they are all in the back of the head. Again, 27 experts have confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head.]

Actually, there are three very tiny fragments near the 6.5 mm object--one could almost call them specks or particles.

[Pat: It seems clear, moreover, that much of the confusion stems from the fact these are 3 dimensional objects, and the measurements provided by the doctors were 2-D. In such case a large object 8 x 2 x 10 can be mistaken for a much smaller object 8 x 2 x 1. The first object is ten times larger and yet they can both be described as 8 x 2.]

[Me: The only confusion is with you. 27 experts, who come from both sides of the fence, agree that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. Plus, OD measurements have erased all doubt about the 6.5 mm object and the small fragment inside it.]

The consensus you claim just isn't true. As you know, the ARRB talked to some experts and they couldn't even find an entrance on the back of the head, let alone a sliver of bullet right next to said entrance.

The fact that the ARRB experts did not see an entrance wound in the back of the head on the x-rays does not change the fact that 24 other experts have placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head on the x-rays. That is why Dr. Fitzpatrick spent so much time trying to find a companion image for the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays, and why he was so bothered that he could not find one but only a very small fragment in the back of the skull where a much larger fragment should have been.

[Pat: My irritation with Mantik stems in part from his deceptiveness on this issue. He has repeatedly told his audience that the forehead fragment is the fragment removed at autopsy, even though he claimed in his earliest writings that the fragment in the archives is not the forehead fragment on the x-rays. He is familiar with John Hunt's work, moreover, and knows full well that Hunt obtained an image of the archives fragment before it it was broken up by the FBI, and that the fragment on this image is consistent with the large fragment on the x-ray.]

[Me: Are you just going to keep going around and around with this stuff? Go read Mantik's writings for the last 10 years. Read his last three books. He notes that a major indication of fraud is that the lateral x-rays show no image in the back of head, or anywhere else, that corresponds with the 6.5 mm object seen in the AP x-ray. You are either severely misrepresenting Mantin's views or you have severely misunderstood them.]

[Pat: Another dodge. You repeat something I've been saying as if it refutes what I've been saying. Yes, Mantik says there is no fragment on the back of the head in the A-P. And he is right. But he should have looked elsewhere for this fragment...like where the doctors said they'd found the largest fragment--behind the right eye.]

Umm, he did not "look elsewhere" because the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head, as confirmed by 26 other experts, which means that if the object is a bullet fragment, there should be a companion image for it in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays, but there is not.

[Pat: As far as the x-ray images being inconsistent with M/C ammunition, that's just not true. While a lead snowstorm is normally associated with hunting ammunition, a full-metal jacket bullet striking tangentially will explode and leave a lead snowstorm. I have seen it argued, moreover, that the fragments in the so-called trail of fragments on Kennedy's x-ray are larger than would be expected if the bullet had been hunting ammunition. If so, it may be that the trail of fragments is proof of a FMJ bullet, not proof against.]

[Me: Not a single one of the FMJ bullets in the WC ballistics tests left a snowstorm of tiny fragments. Not one.]

None of them struck tangentially.

Yeah, that’s because they fired at the rear entry point described in the autopsy report.

[Me: Furthermore, you ignored my point that the main point of this thread is that the back-of-head fragments--the one in the galea and the one in the outer table--could not have come from FMJ ammo, for the reasons that Sturdivan explained regarding the 6.5 mm object's origin.]

Make up your mind. Mantik says there are no such fragments. Is he correct, or not? And, if not, why is it that NONE of the experts studying the computer-enhanced x-rays could make out what Russells Morgan and Fisher claimed to see on the unenhanced x-rays?

You are again misrepresenting Mantik's findings. As you should know, Mantik does indeed say there are bullet fragments in the back of the head on the x-rays. He's even diagrammed them in his books. He's confirmed their existence through numerous OD measurements (obtaining literally hundreds of data points), and Dr. Chesser has confirmed his measurements. Mantik's diagram, which I have cited in this thread, shows the largest of the back-of-head fragments and gives a measurement of 2.5 mm for its widest point. This, as Mantik explains, is the fragment that is within the image of the 6.5 mm object.

Furthermore, Dr. Mantik has confirmed the existence of the McDonnel fragment in his writings, including his most recent book.

How can you not know these things? How?

Those back-of-head fragments, as Dr. Sturdivan has confirmed, could not have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. It is amazing that you are disputing this.

Don't take this next comment too hard, and I mean it partly in jest, but "with conspiracy theorists like you, who needs lone-gunman theorists?"

Just now, David Von Pein said:

Refresh my memory --- Who is Chief Mills?

Oh, he was obviously just another lying or mistaken witness. Chief Mills was one of the two chief petty officers (Navy corpsmen) who searched the limousine during the autopsy, found the "misshapen bullet" in the rear of the limo, and brought the bullet to the autopsy room, where Dr. Young saw it.

17 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, we know that no "whole bullet" was ever at the autopsy either. Because if it had been, then that whole bullet would have been entered as evidence in the case by Dr. Humes (et al). But it wasn't. Therefore, Dr. Young must be wrong or mistaken or not telling the whole truth.

LOL! 

You must be writing from a parallel universe during a time when the ARRB materials have not been released yet. It is astonishing that you would reject Dr. Young's account, and even suggest he was lying, because "Dr. Humes et al" did not enter a whole bullet into evidence. Was Chief Mills mistaken or lying too?

How about the Sibert & O'Neill 11/22/63 receipt for "a MISSILE removed by Commander James Humes"? Let me guess: They were really only talking about the two tiny fragments that Humes removed from the skull, right? Find me a single other FBI document where two tiny fragments are described as "a missile."

21 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I agree with Gerry Down. The answer to your above question is most certainly Yes.

Let's have a look at Commission Exhibit No. 569....

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

Also See:

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

How could Dr. Young have been describing CE 569 when CE 569 was never at the autopsy, was found at a different time, was found by different people, and was found in the opposite end of the limo? 

CE 569 and 567 were found by Secret Service agents when the limo first arrived in Washington from Dallas, long before the two Navy corpsmen found the bullet that Dr. Young saw. The two fragments were delivered by Deputy Chief Paul Paterni and White House Detail Chief Floyd M. Boring to FBI Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, who then delivered them to FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier in the FBI laboratory at 11:50 p.m. on 11/22/1963. Again, CE 569 was never at the autopsy. So how could it be the object that Dr. Young saw during the autopsy?  

Surely you realize that your argument is unserious and illogical, not to mention impossible. Leaving aside the fact CE 569 was never at the autopsy, the fragment is a fraction of the size of a Carcano bullet and weighs nearly eight times less than a Carcano bullet (20.6 grains vs. 160 grains). Moreover, CE 569 is not just "misshapen" but is a badly damaged fragment that was obviously torn from the rest of the bullet--you can see where the tearing occurred. It is very hard to fathom how even a child would describe that fragment as a bullet. But, of course, all of these problems pale compared to the problem that CE 569 was never at the autopsy.