A couple of questions for the lone nutters Re: Xray # 4

[Gil Jesus]

 

Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that he was ordered by Dr. Ebersole the morning after the assassination to take Xrays of some skull fragments because they were planning to make a "bust" of JFK.

Since when are busts made from Xrays instead of photographs ?

Custer also said that Ebersole gave him some metal fragments and told him to tape those fragments to the pieces of skull.

 

 

Maybe some of the Warren Commission supporters can explain why you need metal fragments taped to skull bone to make a bust ?

 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

 

Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that he was ordered by Dr. Ebersole the morning after the assassination to take Xrays of some skull fragments because they were planning to make a "bust" of JFK.

Since when are busts made from Xrays instead of photographs ?

Custer also said that Ebersole gave him some metal fragments and told him to tape those fragments to the pieces of skull.

 

 

Maybe some of the Warren Commission supporters can explain why you need metal fragments taped to skull bone to make a bust ?

Oh, I can just imagine their responses: Custer misunderstood Ebersole. Custer invented the account because he was a publicity seeker. Custer is unreliable because he changed his story about the location of the large head wound. Ebersole could have simply done the taping of metal fragments and the x-raying of skull fragments by himself--he would not have needed to ask Custer to do these things for him. Why would the plotters have risked involving a low-level x-ray technician when Ebersole was a radiologist and could have done the job himself? Of course, the key to denying the problem here is to assume that Custer either lied or "misunderstood" Ebersole.

Here are two of my still-unanswered questions for lone-gunman theorists about the autopsy skull x-rays:

1. Where is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report on the extant skull x-rays? The autopsy doctors said in the report that the trail began slightly above the EOP and ran to a point just above the right eye orbit. Where is that trail on the extant skull x-rays?

2. Why does the autopsy report say nothing about the obvious high fragment trail seen on the extant skull x-rays? The high fragment trail is at least 2 full inches above the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report. Are you asking us to believe that the autopsy doctors were describing the high fragment trail when they said there was a fragment trail that began slightly above the EOP and ran to a spot just above the orbit of the right eye? Can anyone rationally fathom how even a first-year x-ray technician could make such a mind-boggling error? 

[Gerry Down]

I think what happened there is that the pathologists saw all these tiny fragments in the skull x-ray and because they were not forensic pathologists they were unsure if these fragments were metal bullet fragments or tiny splinters of bone. And so a test was conducted. Ebersole taped some metal fragments to a piece of bone and had it x-rayed. They could then use this x-ray as a comparison to the skull x-ray.

I would imagine Ebersole did not want to admit this incompetence to Custor and so he simply did not explain it him.

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

I think what happened there is that the pathologists saw all these tiny fragments in the skull x-ray and because they were not forensic pathologists they were unsure if these fragments were metal bullet fragments or tiny splinters of bone. And so a test was conducted. Ebersole taped some metal fragments to a piece of bone and had it x-rayed. They could then use this x-ray as a comparison to the skull x-ray.

I would imagine Ebersole did not want to admit this incompetence to Custor and so he simply did not explain it him.

I see a number of problems with this scenario. For starters, there is no trail of any fragments leading from the EOP to the right orbit on the extant skull x-rays. Two, the cloud of fragments on the extant x-rays is clearly nowhere near the EOP, and this would have been plainly obvious on the lateral x-rays. Three, Finck was a forensic pathologist and had enough experience to distinguish between a fragment trail that started at the EOP and one that was well above and forward of it. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Gerry Down]

14 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I see a number of problems with this scenario. For starters, there is no trail of any fragments leading from the EOP to the right orbit on the extant skull x-rays. Two, the cloud of fragments on the extant x-rays is clearly nowhere near the EOP, and this would have been plainly obvious on the lateral x-rays. Three, Finck was a forensic pathologist and had enough experience to distinguish between a fragment trail that started at the EOP and one that was well above and forward of it. 

I don't think humes and Boswell were getting along very well with finck by the Saturday which is when Ebersole got custor to do this. I'd say humes was trying to write up the report without too much help from finck and this episode with Ebersole is a symptom of that.

With regard to the x-ray with the fragment trail coming out of the eop? I think there was an x-ray we have not seen that shows this trail and which was mentioned in the autopsy report. Why we have a lateral x-ray now that shows the fragment trail in a completely different position is something I can't yet explain.

[Michael Griffith]

2 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

I don't think humes and Boswell were getting along very well with finck by the Saturday which is when Ebersole got custor to do this. I'd say humes was trying to write up the report without too much help from finck and this episode with Ebersole is a symptom of that.

With regard to the x-ray with the fragment trail coming out of the eop? I think there was an x-ray we have not seen that shows this trail and which was mentioned in the autopsy report. Why we have a lateral x-ray now that shows the fragment trail in a completely different position is something I can't yet explain.

If the lateral x-rays in evidence were pristine, they would show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, unless one wants to argue that Humes and Boswell unbelievably mistook the high fragment trail for one that was at least 2 inches lower and in a different part of the skull.