Forwarned!

[Daniel Gallup]

Info re Bullet behind JFK ear..

FWIW, the "lodged behind the Ear" memo was written during the autopsy, when information was quite sketchy and transmitted via the phone. The doctors claimed the largest fragment recovered during this autopsy was recovered from behind the right Eye. Eye, not Ear. As a result, I think it's highly probable the reference to the ear was simply a mistake, and that the fragment in question was the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray, the fragment recovered from behind the right eye.

Pat, isn't that 6.5 mm fragment also the subject of intense scrutiny and question?

[Bernice Moore]

Info re Bullet behind JFK ear..

FWIW, the "lodged behind the Ear" memo was written during the autopsy, when information was quite sketchy and transmitted via the phone. The doctors claimed the largest fragment recovered during this autopsy was recovered from behind the right Eye. Eye, not Ear. As a result, I think it's highly probable the reference to the ear was simply a mistake, and that the fragment in question was the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray, the fragment recovered from behind the right eye.

i think you may be referring to this documentation,, but it is not the same as the previous document...b

[Daniel Gallup]

Info re Bullet behind JFK ear..

FWIW, the "lodged behind the Ear" memo was written during the autopsy, when information was quite sketchy and transmitted via the phone. The doctors claimed the largest fragment recovered during this autopsy was recovered from behind the right Eye. Eye, not Ear. As a result, I think it's highly probable the reference to the ear was simply a mistake, and that the fragment in question was the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray, the fragment recovered from behind the right eye.

i think you may be referring to this documentation,, but it is not the same as the previous document...b

I remember Lifton has a discussion of the FBI language in these memos in Best Evidence. There is, on pp. 648-9 in the Caroll and Graf paperback edition an extensive discussion of the problem. On page 649 top: "Until Admiral Osborne's statement [he had seen a bullet roll out of the President's clothing at Bethesda], then, the record shaped up as follows: 1. there was, on the one hand, a receipt for a "missile," but no "missle" in evidence corresponding to that receipt; 2. there was a jar containing two tiny fragments, but no receipt that seemed applicable to that jar; yet the FBI stated, in their own report, that they had executed a "proper receipt" for these two fragments." Most of Chapter 29 on the Osborne allegation is quite relevant. Best,Daniel

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I'm pretty sure I understand Tom's explanation, but I think he should be the one to post it here.

TIP: if you wanna see a real SBT, don't focur on the first OR the second shot...if I recall correctly.

Since anything which is "MAGIC" would also have little difficulty in accomplishing a disappearing act, and neither CE399 nor the fragments (CE567 & CE569) managed to achieve this action, then one just may want to concentrate on the bullet that did actually manage to achieve (if only temporarily) a complete disappearance.

Yep! I do believe that you fully understand the cryptics of the conversation.

Tom

P.S. Latest publication went out today in the mail!

Sorry, Tom, but I really don't understand the need for "Cryptics". Where exatcly does that get us? Presumably you're a member of this forum because you like to discuss the JFK assassination with others, so let's discuss.

All I'm asking is that you explain what you meant by the following:

"That tells me that the wounds weren't made with any military-type ammunition"

NOPE! Merely tells that the bullet that struck only penetrated a short distance.-----Something that has been documented and known for a long, long time.

"and the SBT is nothing but BS."

Actually, the SBT is a demonstrated fact. Just that CE399 IS NOT the SBT.

I really don't think I'm asking much of you.

Long ago, here on this forum, the exact aspects of each of the three shots fired was addressed.---More than one time.

Each time that someone "new" comes along, they appear to be too lazy to actually research what has already been written, and thereafter ask (or demand) that it all be given to them again,

Long, long, ago, my Battallion Commander in the 82nd Airborne Division gave me some of the best advice that could be given to anyone.

He stated to the effect: Tom, no matter what you attempt to do in life, someone else will have done something similar and there will be something written on the subject. When you become involved with anything, the first thing that you should do is to get everything (available) that has ever been written on the subject, and study them.

Then, if you merely avoid making the mistakes of those before you, you will have accomplished something and will have done "better" than have those prior.

Throughout the pages on this forum, lie most of the answers to the assassination of JFK.!

They have been presented, irrelevant as to whether anyone accepts and/or believes it or not.

They are of such factual basis that in the last two years I have expended close to $30,000.00 in publication/publishing of these facts since November of 2009, within my local hometown newspaper.

And, one can be assured that I do not "piss" away some $30,000.00 (+) dollars merely due to being mentally deranged and/or of the misguided assumption that the facts will not bear out what has been published to date.

Those who wish the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts, will find them here.

Or, they can make attempt to secure the past two years of publishings of the hometown newspaper (which is most unlikely).

Or! Just perhaps the Sixth Floor Museum will place each of these consecutive publishings out for all to see and have opportunity to attempt to "sharp-shoot".

Tom

P.S. The "cryptics" were long ago placed in order to attempt to force/direct many here to actually think for themselves and take into consideration exactly how assinine some of what is printed here actually is.

And, fortunately, there are those who are members of this forum, as well as those who are not and can only read what is published, who are now NOT persuaded by the BS which permeates this as well as other forums which deal with the facts of the event.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Thanks Mike, that is it for me.

Oswald was an excellent shot. All three shots he fired hit. They all came from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

yeah , sure

Those who stick their foot into their mouth usually have to either eat; deny it; or else thereafter run and bury their head in the sand and attempt to ignore their own ignorance and stupidity.

Personally, I long ago accepted that it will take considerable time before most come to recognized the simple facts related to the assassination.

But, at least what they now have are FACTS! As opposed to assinine speculations!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Info re Bullet behind JFK ear..

FWIW, the "lodged behind the Ear" memo was written during the autopsy, when information was quite sketchy and transmitted via the phone. The doctors claimed the largest fragment recovered during this autopsy was recovered from behind the right Eye. Eye, not Ear. As a result, I think it's highly probable the reference to the ear was simply a mistake, and that the fragment in question was the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray, the fragment recovered from behind the right eye.

Be careful!!!! One could acquire the wrath of the "speculators" by presenting anything which is rational; factual; and which makes simple sense.

[Daniel Gallup]

Info re Bullet behind JFK ear..

FWIW, the "lodged behind the Ear" memo was written during the autopsy, when information was quite sketchy and transmitted via the phone. The doctors claimed the largest fragment recovered during this autopsy was recovered from behind the right Eye. Eye, not Ear. As a result, I think it's highly probable the reference to the ear was simply a mistake, and that the fragment in question was the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray, the fragment recovered from behind the right eye.

Be careful!!!! One could acquire the wrath of the "speculators" by presenting anything which is rational; factual; and which makes simple sense.

Tom, what grieves me is how far above you put yourself above others with whom you disagree, and the contemptuous language you employ therein. Is all this necessary?

[Bernice Moore]

Info re Bullet behind JFK ear..

FWIW, the "lodged behind the Ear" memo was written during the autopsy, when information was quite sketchy and transmitted via the phone. The doctors claimed the largest fragment recovered during this autopsy was recovered from behind the right Eye. Eye, not Ear. As a result, I think it's highly probable the reference to the ear was simply a mistake, and that the fragment in question was the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray, the fragment recovered from behind the right eye.

i think you may be referring to this documentation,, but it is not the same as the previous document...b

hi pat; No; the first (bullet) document is referenced from Parkland, the two others (fragment) from bethesda, the first (bullet)has nothing to do with the autopsy...b

fwiw:

a 1967 oral history of

Burkley done by William McHugh for the JFK Library. I found this

question and Burkley's answer interesting.

MCHUGH: I see. Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of

bullets that entered the President's body?

BURKLEY: I would not care to be quoted on that.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Pat Speer]

Info re Bullet behind JFK ear..

FWIW, the "lodged behind the Ear" memo was written during the autopsy, when information was quite sketchy and transmitted via the phone. The doctors claimed the largest fragment recovered during this autopsy was recovered from behind the right Eye. Eye, not Ear. As a result, I think it's highly probable the reference to the ear was simply a mistake, and that the fragment in question was the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray, the fragment recovered from behind the right eye.

i think you may be referring to this documentation,, but it is not the same as the previous document...b

hi pat; No; the first (bullet) document is referenced from Parkland, the two others (fragment) from bethesda, the first (bullet)has nothing to do with the autopsy...b

fwiw:

a 1967 oral history of

Burkley done by William McHugh for the JFK Library. I found this

question and Burkley's answer interesting.

MCHUGH: I see. Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of

bullets that entered the President's body?

BURKLEY: I would not care to be quoted on that.

Bernice, the "lodged behind the ear" comment is in a memo from Belmont, running the investigation in Washington, to Tolson, number 2 man under Hoover. He says he told this to Shanklin, running the investigation in Dallas. In other words, he is telling Tolson what he'd told Shanklin about the autopsy. As NO ONE present at the autopsy recalls a bullet being lodged behind the ear, but many recall a fragment being lodged behind the eye, it seems clear Belmont was a bit confused.

As far as Burkley, he'd seen the Harper fragment, which demonstrates both internal and external beveling, and suggests the large defect was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. This, in turn, suggests the wound on the back of the head came from a second head shot. Apparently, he was aware of this, as he hinted several times he thought it possible two bullets struck Kennedy in the skull.

[Pat Speer]

Info re Bullet behind JFK ear..

FWIW, the "lodged behind the Ear" memo was written during the autopsy, when information was quite sketchy and transmitted via the phone. The doctors claimed the largest fragment recovered during this autopsy was recovered from behind the right Eye. Eye, not Ear. As a result, I think it's highly probable the reference to the ear was simply a mistake, and that the fragment in question was the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray, the fragment recovered from behind the right eye.

Pat, isn't that 6.5 mm fragment also the subject of intense scrutiny and question?

Yes it is. And as far as I know, Pat and John Lattimer are the only guys ever to claim that the supposedly 6.5 mm fragment is behind the eye not on the back of the skull where all the experts place it. As I understand it, the way you can tell its on the back of the head is that the edges are in sharp focus. The X-ray source was above JFK's head with the plate underneath his head. Objects closer to the plate will be in sharp focus and will appear more fuzzy the further away they are. I'm obviously not a medical expert but I think I got that right.

Where do you get this stuff? Never mind. I think I know. Humes, Boswell, Reed, and Custer all told the ARRB they thought the supposed 6.5 mm fragment was the one recovered at autopsy from behind the right eye. Greer, Kellerman, Sibert and O'Neill also claimed at one point or another that the largest fragment was recovered from behind the right eye.

Lattimer NEVER claimed the supposed 6.5 fragment was behind the right eye, as far as I'm aware. In fact, it's the opposite. Not only did he help spread the Clark Panel myth the fragment was on the back of the head, he started the equally stupid myth the fragment in the middle of the forehead was the fragment recovered at autopsy.

As far as "all" the other "experts"... it's just not true that they all thought the fragment was on the back of the head. Some of them, it's clear, just went along with the Clark Panel. The last three experts to look at the x-rays--for the ARRB--who were not under the influence of the Clark Panel, moreover, were unanimous in their inability to find this fragment on the back of the head.

February, 1968. Dr. Russell H. Morgan, the radiologist on the Clark Panel notes in its report that "On one of the lateral films of the skull, a hole measuring approximately 8 mm in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm on the internal surface can be sen in profile approximately 100 mm above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." This places the hole in a section of parietal bone that presumably fell to the table when the doctors peeled back the scalp and NOT in the occipital bone near the hairline where the doctors claimed to have seen a beveled entrance. Morgan also notes that "embedded in the outer table of the skull close to the lower edge of the hole, a large metallic fragment" can be observed and that "on the antero-posterior film" this fragment "lies 25 mm to the right of midline." This suggests the fragment is in the depressed bone below the entrance. He then notes "This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm in diameter." As the ammunition found in the assassination rifle measured 6.5 mm, this suggests the fragment was a cross-section of the bullet. Morgan then offers that "Immediately adjacent to the hole on the internal surface of the skull, there is localized elevation of the soft tissues. Small fragments of bone lie within portions of these tissues and within the hole itself."

January, 1972. Dr. John Lattimer, a urologist, becomes the first independent examiner of the autopsy photos and x-rays. He would later be asked to testify for the Rockefeller Commission. In his article on his examination, published in the May 1972 issue of Resident and Staff Physician, Lattimer presents his conclusions. These conclusions are not truly independent, however. In the article, he admits that a "top roentgenologist, Dr. Russell H. Morgan," had previously reviewed the x-rays, and had "issued a technical report about them, couched in proper medical terms." This is a reference to the report of the Clark Panel. Lattimer then adds "The author wishes to fully acknowledge this report by forensic experts." Throughout the article, moreover, Morgan's influence is obvious. In his depiction of Kennedy's wounds, Lattimer depicts a bullet entrance high on the back of the head and notes "The ovoid 'wound of entry' was fairly high up on the back of the skull, well above the hairline, where the skull was starting to curve forward, and about 10 cm above the occipital tuberosity... The bone at the lower margin of the hole was depressed slightly and the wound in the inner table was characteristically larger than the wound in the outer table (cone shaped), exactly as one would expect from a 'wound of entrance' into the back of the skull." He then asserts "A (6.5 mm diameter) fragment of the bullet had been shaved off by the sharp edge of the thick bone of the skull and was embedded in the margin of the wound of entrance." That Lattimer was simply regurgitating the Clark Panel's report is suggested, moreover, by the fact Lattimer changed his opinion late in life, and ended up believing the bullet entrance on the back of the head was low on the head, as proposed in the autopsy report.

August, 1972. Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, becomes the first independent forensic pathologist to view the autopsy photos and x-rays. He would later testify for the Rockefeller Commission and function as a member of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. As reported by writer David Lifton, who accompanied Dr. Wecht to the Archives, Wecht can't find a bullet entrance on the back of the head on the x-rays. For his April 1974 article on his examination, however, Wecht appears to take a cue from Dr. Lattimer, and defers to Dr.Morgan. On Wecht's depiction of Kennedy's skull, as viewed from the side, he presents "a sizable fragment" on the back of the head "at the lower margin of the hole of presumed bullet entry." In the text he then claims that from viewing the autopsy photos and x-rays "one entry wound is definitely identifiable...high on the rear of the skull." That Dr. Wecht was not an expert on x-rays, and was simply deferring to Morgan, is supported, moreover, by the fact Wecht later co-wrote an article with Dr. David Mantik in which they claimed that the small fragment on the back of the head in the lateral x-rays was too small to be the large fragment on the A-P x-ray.

April, 1975. Dr. Werner Spitz, a forensic pathologist closely associated with the Clark Panel's Dr. Fisher, and a member of both the Rockefeller Commission Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, views the autopsy materials. In his report, he notes "The missile which struck the right side of the President's head penetrated approximately 10 cm above the occipital protuberance and 2 1/2 cm to the right of the midline." These are the exact measurements offered by the Clark Panel. As a result, it seems more than likely Spitz was yet another deferring to Morgan's opinion regarding the wound location. Even so, it's interesting that in Spitz's 6 page report for the Rockefeller Commission he never mentions the large fragment apparent on the x-rays. Instead, he claims, weakly, that "Nothing in the evidence which I have viewed tends to conflict with my opinion that the two shots which struck the president could have come" from the sniper's nest.

April, 1975. Dr. Richard Lindenberg, a neuropathologist on the Rockefeller Commission's Panel, and another close associate of Dr. Fisher's, views the autopsy materials. He appears to have been yet another to rely on Fisher's and Morgan's conclusions, and notes in his report that a "circumscribed defect in the posterior parietal bone which has the characteristic of an entrance hole" is apparent on the lateral x-ray. He then claims a bullet "hit the right side of the head of the president approximately 2.5 cm from the midline and 10 cm above the occipital protuberance." He notes further that the "bullet became somewhat deformed when it entered the skull and lead was squeezed out of its base. One larger fragment lies outside and next to the lower margin of the entrance wound." Apparently, he felt Lattimer's conclusion the fragment had been "shaved" from the bullet was inaccurate.

April, 1975. Dr. Fred Hodges, the sole radiologist on the Rockefeller Commission's Panel, views the materials. He notes that, although a bullet entrance is not "readily detected," many "linear fracture lines converge" on the site of the "small round hole...described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone." He notes further that "one large metallic fragment is flattened against the outer table of the occiput." He concludes that "The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput leaving a portion of itself flattened against the outer table before penetrating the bone, producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull represented by extensive fractures, missing bone, disrupted soft tissues and gas within the cranial cavity." By concluding there was a bullet entrance in the location described in the autopsy report, Hodges rejects the conclusions of Dr. Morgan and the Clark Panel.

April, 1975. Dr. Robert McMeekin, a forensic pathologist on the Rockefeller Commission's Panel, views the autopsy materials. He is quite vague about what he observes, however. He reports simply that "The evidence presented is consistent" with the fatal bullet's being fired from the sniper's nest. He then notes that from studying the Zapruder film, he concludes that "The motion of the President's head is inconsistent with the shot striking him from any direction other than the rear." Note that he fails to say the medical evidence says as much. Note that he fails to support the wound location and fragment location offered by the Clark Panel. From this it seems reasonable to assume McMeekin believed the Clark Panel and/or the original autopsists had made some mistakes, but didn't want to get in the middle of it. Intriguingly, the man running the Rockefeller Commission's investigation, former Warren Commission counsel David Belin, had presented the members of its medical panel with fourteen points that should be addressed in their reports. Not among them was the actual location of the entrance on Kennedy's skull. Not among them was the actual location of the large fragment on the A-P x-ray. Apparently, Belin had no interest in solving these mysteries.

April, 1975. Dr. Alfred Olivier, a veterinarian, and both a Warren Commission and Rockefeller Commission consultant on wound ballistics, is shown the autopsy materials. His report on his examination is also vague, and notes merely that "It appears that the President was struck by two separate bullets that came from behind, somewhat to the right and above." He offers no support for the entrance wound location offered by the original autopsists, nor the one offered by the Clark Panel. He never mentions the mysterious fragment readily identifiable on the A-P x-ray.

October, 1977. Dr, Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, views the autopsy materials. In his report on his examination he notes that the fatal bullet's entrance "appears to have been just below obelion and 18 mm to the right of midline." Obelion is a point on the posterior parietal bone along the sagittal suture for which Angel gives no measurements. Angel also notes a "radiopaque lump behind obelion with which cracks appears to mark entry." In other words, he, like Hodges, does not see an entrance on the back of the head, but assumes the presence of one due to the fragment and fractures on the back of the skull. By claiming the entrance was below obelion and that the fragment was behind obelion, moreover, Angel also suggests that the fragment was above the bullet entrance, the opposite of what was suggested by Morgan and the Clark Panel.

February, 1978. Dr. Norman Chase, a radiology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, is interviewed by an HSCA investigator. The memo on this interview asserts that while viewing the x-rays, Chase notes an "entry point" on "upper rear head." He reportedly claims further that a "large metal fragment" is "prominent" on the A-P x-ray, and that he "believes it corresponds to the metal fragment in the rear of the head as evidence on the lateral view." This suggests that he does not see an actual hole on the back of the head, and is even unsure if the the large metal fragment is on the back of the head.

February, 1978. Dr. William Seaman, a radiology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, is interviewed by an HSCA investigator. The memo on this interview asserts that while viewing the x-rays, Seaman notes a "possible defect" in the "upper rear skull," but can not detect "beveling of the skull at that point." This beveling was not only supposedly detected by Morgan and the Clark Panel, it was measured down to the millimeter. In the short report on the investigator's discussion with Seaman, the large fragment is never mentioned.

March, 1978. Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at Kennedy's autopsy, is finally released from a military order of silence handed down within days of the autopsy. A March 9, 1978 AP article (found in the Reading Eagle) on an interview with Ebersole reports that he now admits "I would say unequivocally the bullet came from the side or back...There is no way that I can see on the basis of the x-rays that the bullet came from anywhere in the 180-degree angle to the front, assuming Kennedy was facing forward. It looked to me like an almost right to left shot from the rear." When, during his Match 11, 1978 testimony before the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, Ebersole is shown Kennedy's x-rays and asked if he can identify an entrance location for a bullet, moreover, Ebersole responds "In my opinion it would have come from the side on the basis of the films. I guess that is all that can be said about the films at this time... I would say on the basis of those x rays and x rays only one might say one would have to estimate there that the wound of entrance was somewhere to the side or to the posterior quadrant." By saying that the x-rays only showed that the bullet came from the side or behind, Ebersole was acknowledging that he was unable to note a bullet entrance on the back of the head in the x-rays.

August, 1978. Dr. G.M. McDonnel, a radiology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, views the enhanced images of the x-rays. He had previously viewed the originals. In his report on these examinations, he fails to note a bullet hole on the back of Kennedy's head. Instead, he notes a depressed fracture with radiating fractures 10.6 cm above the EOP. He also notes a metallic fragment 1 cm below this fracture, on the outer table of the skull, above the mid-portion of the EOP, that is "nearly spherical" on the enhanced A-P image. As he proceeds to describe this fragment as a "spherical shaped contoured metallic fragment" it seems clear he either had trouble finding it on the lateral view, and just named it in accordance with its appearance on the A-P view, or that he thought he saw a corresponding "spherical shaped" fragment on the back of the head in the lateral view. No one else, of course, has claimed to see such a thing.

August, 1978. Dr. David O. Davis, a radiology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, views the enhanced images of the x-rays. In his report on his examination, he fails to note a bullet hole on the back of the skull, but says radiating fractures "seem to more or less emanate from" an "imbedded metallic fragment" 9-10 cm above the EOP on the outer table of the skull. He then notes that "On the frontal view, this metallic fragment is located 2.5 cm to the right of midline, and on the lateral view, it is approximately 3-4 cm above the lambda." As he later says the central point of the skull fractures is 3 cm from midline, this means that, in Davis' analysis, the large bullet fragment ended up to the left of the entrance.

1979. The Report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel does not note an entrance hole apparent on the x-rays, but notes a depressed fracture as a “sharp disruption of the normal smooth contour of the skull 10 cm above the EOP” (which places it higher than in the Clark Panel Report, whose measurement of 10 cm was the distance to the 8 mm hole above the depressed fracture). The report also mentions “suggested beveling” of the inner table and radiating fracture lines. In its section on the course of the bullet through the head, moreover, it notes that "embedded within the lower margin of this defect is a radiopaque shadow which, in the opinion of the panel, is a fragment of the missile. This shadow is 10 cm above the external occipital protuberance and 2.5 cm to the right of the midline" in the A-P x-ray. (If one is to assume they shared the trajectory panel's belief the entrance was 1.8 cm from mid-line, this means the Pathology Panel felt the bullet fragment ended up to the right and below its entrance.) The report then notes that "one surface of this fragment...is round. The maximum diameter of the fragment measures .65 centimeter." This last measurement was not provided by any of the panel's radiology consultants, nor was it mentioned in the testimony of the panel's spokesman, Dr. Michael Baden, before the committee. As a result, one can only assume it was added into the report at the last second, and was taken from the findings of Dr. Morgan and the Clark Panel.

1979. The Report of the HSCA Trajectory Panel claims the entrance high on the back of Kennedy's head was 1.8 cm to the right of midline and 9 cm above the EOP. This places the entrance 1 cm below the depressed fracture observed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, and on intact bone. This also contradicts the conclusions of the Clark Panel.

January, 1996. Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist, is shown the autopsy materials and interviewed by the AARB. The report on this interview claims that "No entry wound could be located anywhere on the A-P x-ray" by Ubelaker. It notes further that he "could not locate any entry wound to the head on the lateral x-rays," and that he noted a large fragment visible on the A-P x-ray, but "could not find this object anywhere on the lateral x-rays of the head."

February, 1996. Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist, is shown the autopsy materials and interviewed by the ARRB. The report on this interview claims that "No entry wound was seen on the A-P x-ray" by Fitzpatrick. It notes further that he also claims "No entry wound can be found on the lateral head x-rays." It also reports that Fitzpatrick admits he's "puzzled by the fact that the large radio-opaque object in the A-P skull x-ray could not be located on the lateral skull x-rays."

April, 1996. Dr. Robert Kirschner, a forensic pathologist, is shown the autopsy materials and interviewed by the ARRB. The report on this interview notes that "No entrance wound could be located on either the two lateral x-rays, or the single-A-P x-rays..." by Kirschner. It then claims that he wonders if the supposed large fragment embedded on the back of the head was instead "a plug of bone forced forward into the skull by an entering bullet." This confirms that Kirschner saw no sign of this fragment or plug on the back of the head in the lateral x-rays.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Greer, Kellerman, Sibert and O'Neill also claimed at one point or another that the largest fragment was recovered from behind the right eye.

And they were probably right that the largest fragment that was recovered did come from behind the right eye. But as Sibert and O'Neil noted in their report there was another large fragment "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone." It seems perfectly obvious to me that the aforementioned report of a bullet "lodged behind the President's right ear" is referring to this large supposedly 6.5 mm fragment embedded on the back of the skull.

As far as "all" the other "experts"... it's just not true that they all thought the fragment was on the back of the head. Some of them, it's clear, just went along with the Clark Panel.

And by "went along with" I'm assuming you mean agreed with. You're a laugh-a-minute, Pat.

P.S. My bad about Lattimer. Not sure who I was thinking of. I guess you are all alone...

Sorry, Martin. If you really expect us to believe that the fragment on the back of the head described in the FBI report was the supposedly 6.5 mm fragment and that this fragment is also the fragment purportedly "lodged behind the ear" in the FBI memo it is you who are all alone. The report makes clear that this fragment was the "next largest fragment." When one looks at the lateral x-ray. moreover, there it is, a fragment on the back of the head, clearly inferior in size to the largest fragment visible on the A-P x-ray, which was recovered from behind the eye.

[Pat Speer]

Sorry, Martin. If you really expect us to believe that the fragment on the back of the head described in the FBI report was the supposedly 6.5 mm fragment and that this fragment is also the fragment purportedly "lodged behind the ear" in the FBI memo it is you who are all alone. The report makes clear that this fragment was the "next largest fragment." When one looks at the lateral x-ray. moreover, there it is, a fragment on the back of the head, clearly inferior in size to the largest fragment visible on the A-P x-ray, which was recovered from behind the eye.

I don't expect you to believe anything that didn't spring from your own imagination, Pat. Nor do I care if you agree with me. In fact, I prefer it when you don't because that tells me I'm on the right track.

I can't explain the "next largest fragment" line anymore than I can explain the "surgery of the head" line or the "entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees" line. The Sibert/O'Neil report, like many of the early reports, was clearly not without its inaccuracies.

Here are the words in Sibert and O'Neill's report: “X-rays of the brain…disclosed a path of a missile…the path of the disintegrated fragments could be observed along the right side of the skull…The largest section of this missile as portrayed by x-ray appeared to be behind the right frontal sinus…The next largest fragment appeared to be at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone.”

How is it "my imagination" that the second largest fragment on the x-rays REALLY IS "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone"? Geez, isn't it possible that those performing and reporting the autopsy got something right?

Edited October 9, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Geez, isn't it possible that those performing and reporting the autopsy got something right?

Of course it's possible that "those performing and reporting the autopsy" got something right. But since experts agree that the A-P X-ray shows a large round fragment on the back of the skull, they didn't get this right.

Except, Martin, the "experts" don't agree on this. Russell Morgan of The Clark Panel claimed in 1968 that the large fragment was on the back of the head without his ever interviewing those present at the autopsy, and realizing they'd claimed the fragment had been behind the eye. SOME but by no means all of those viewing the x-rays in the ten years after Morgan supported his analysis. The three experts consulted by the ARRB, however, couldn't find the fragment on the back of the head. Mantik, and apparently Wecht, agree that there is some sort of fragment on the back of the head, but that it is NOT the large fragment visible on the A-P x-ray. I think Aguilar agrees with them. Larry Sturdivan, should one grant him expert status, also claims the fragment--which he believes an artifact--is not on the back of the head. I think Zimmerman agreed. I'm not sure about Artwohl. In any event, virtually everyone viewing the x-rays since 1978 has claimed there is no large fragment on the back of the head in the lateral x-ray corresponding in size to the large fragment on the A-P x-ray.

The Clark Panel also claimed the entrance on the back of Kennedy's head was in the cowlick, and got others to agree. Should we believe them on this, too? It also claimed the entrance on Kennedy's back was far higher on his back than the exit on his throat, and that this proved the shot had been fired from above. This nonsense is still pushed by the likes of Bugliosi and McAdams. Or should we believe them on this as well?

Edited October 10, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Except, Martin, the "experts" don't agree on this. Russell Morgan of The Clark Panel claimed in 1968 that the large fragment was on the back of the head without his ever interviewing those present at the autopsy, and realizing they'd claimed the fragment had been behind the eye. SOME but by no means all of those viewing the x-rays in the ten years after Morgan supported his analysis. The three experts consulted by the ARRB, however, couldn't find the fragment on the back of the head. Mantik, and apparently Wecht, agree that there is some sort of fragment on the back of the head, but that it is NOT the large fragment visible on the A-P x-ray. I think Aguilar agrees with them. Larry Sturdivan, should one grant him expert status, also claims the fragment--which he believes an artifact--is not on the back of the head. I think Zimmerman agreed. I'm not sure about Artwohl. In any event, virtually everyone viewing the x-rays since 1978 has claimed there is no large fragment on the back of the head in the lateral x-ray corresponding in size to the large fragment on the A-P x-ray.

The Clark Panel also claimed the entrance on the back of Kennedy's head was in the cowlick, and got others to agree. Should we believe them on this, too? It also claimed the entrance on Kennedy's back was far higher on his back than the exit on his throat, and that this proved the shot had been fired from above. This nonsense is still pushed by the likes of Bugliosi and McAdams. Or should we believe them on this as well?

LOL Pat, you disappoint me. I expected you to call me on my circular reasoning. But I see you'd rather pretend this is a genuine debate.

OK, I'll play along for five minutes. Tell me, Pat, how many experts agree with your placement of the supposedly 6.5 mm fragment? According to Dr. Mantik:

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. ”

1. I never said the "experts" agreed with me that the fragment was behind the eye. You claimed that they all agreed it was on the back of the head, and are apparently now trying to cover for your error by citing Mantik on this issue.

2. Mantik was almost certainly blowing smoke. Is it it a coincidence that when he says "The discussion that follows from his misidentification should just be ignored—totally" he is running away from, and trying to hide from his readers--the fact that ALL those in attendance at the autopsy agreed that the largest fragment was found behind the eye, and NOT in the middle of the forehead, (as he would have us believe)?

This is the discussion which Mantik hid from his readers.

From Patspeer.com chapter 18:

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

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

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

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

Well, at least Humes tried to tell the truth. Unfortunately, no one believed him… that is, except Dr. Boswell, who confirmed his identification of the fragment. When looking at the lateral x-ray, Dr. Boswell told Gunn “I think we dug this piece out right here,” and then explained “right here” as near the “right eye...right supraorbital area.” He later told Gunn that the large semicircular fragment he’d initially had trouble identifying on the A-P x-ray might very well be “the same as the one that appears to be in the frontal bone in the lateral.” Well, which part of the frontal bone? In any event, he was on the right track.

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

Their statements, moreover, echo what Secret Service Agent William Greer told the Warren Commission someone told him on the night of the autopsy. Greer testified: "I looked at the X-rays when they were taken in the autopsy room, and the person who does that type work showed us the trace of it because there would be little specks of lead where the bullet had come from here and it came to the--they showed where it didn't come on through. It came to a sinus cavity or something they said, over the eye." As Custer and Reed were but technicians, and not officially qualified to interpret the x-rays, we can only assume the "person" who claimed this was Ebersole.

So here we have the men most intimately involved with the skull x-rays ALL stating that the large fragment on the A-P x-ray was in the supraorbital ridge or that the trail of fragments came to an end behind the right eye. But can anyone else confirm this location? Perhaps someone who, unlike Custer and Reed, actually saw the large fragment removed?

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

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

And Sibert and O'Neil weren't the only autopsy attendees to recall the fragment's being removed from behind the eye. Roy Kellerman, the Secret Service agent in charge of Kennedy's detail in Dallas, also attended the autopsy, and was tasked with collecting the autopsy materials after its completion. In 1977, when discussing his role in the autopsy, he confirmed what Agent Greer had told the Warren Commission, and told the HSCA's investigators that the x-rays showed "...a whole mass of stars, the only large piece being behind the eye, which was given to the FBI agents when it was removed."

Edited October 10, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Info re Bullet behind JFK ear..

FWIW, the "lodged behind the Ear" memo was written during the autopsy, when information was quite sketchy and transmitted via the phone. The doctors claimed the largest fragment recovered during this autopsy was recovered from behind the right Eye. Eye, not Ear. As a result, I think it's highly probable the reference to the ear was simply a mistake, and that the fragment in question was the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray, the fragment recovered from behind the right eye.

Be careful!!!! One could acquire the wrath of the "speculators" by presenting anything which is rational; factual; and which makes simple sense.

Tom, what grieves me is how far above you put yourself above others with whom you disagree, and the contemptuous language you employ therein. Is all this necessary?

And the answer is: "Frequently, yes it is necessary in order to make attempt to bring reason into play.

The relatively simple aspects of the JFK assassination have taken on a "life of their own" with all of the BS speculative rumors; hearsay; innuendo; half-truths; etc; etc; etc;.

When dealing with those who accept such BS as if it has some factual basis, it does not hurt to attempt whatever is necessary in order to draw them back down to earth and the reality of the facts, which include:

1. LHO was an absolutely superior marksman at ranges up to 300 yards when firing from a fixed/stable firing position. As was the "bench rest" type position found on the sixth floor of the TSDB, as created by the stacked boxes.

2. The Model 91/38 Carcano rifle utilized in the assassination was a rifle of superior accuracy, and compared with the US Military issue M-14 rifle which is still the basis for many of our sniper rifles.

Want to take a guess as to exactly how long it has taken to convince/persuade many of these simple facts and that all of the BS that they have heard before is just that?

BS!

Now! Merely working on the simple facts of the event, which when accepted will also make a whole lot of proclaimed "researchers" look as relatively stupid as those who have gone on and on about LHO's purported lack of marksmanship as well as the poor accuracy ability of the Carcano.

The lack of factual research, coupled with the frequently ASSinine claims on the part of those who purport to have researched/interest in this event, is what has lead many off into the universe of what is real vs. what is not real.

In that regards, time will be the ultimate deciding factor as to exactly whom is is that should most probably go hide their head in the sand in order to avoid recognition for having been sufficiently stupid enough to have believed much of what is written on the subject matter.