Landis's Disclosure and the 6.5 mm Object on the Autopsy Skull X-Rays

[Michael Griffith]

Former Secret Service agent Paul Landis's recent disclosure that he found a bullet and/or two bullet fragments in the back seat of the limo once again highlights the problems that the ballistics evidence poses for the lone-gunman theory. One of these items of evidence is the 6.5 mm object seen on the autopsy AP skull x-ray. 

One aspect of the 6.5 mm object that WC apologists cannot explain, an aspect that constitutes compelling evidence of a second gunman, is the fact that the 6.5 mm object contains--actually, is superimposed over--the image of a small genuine bullet fragment. The fragment is about 6.3 x 2.5 mm in size. OD measurements done separately by Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser confirm that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm object is metallic. Numerous forensic and other medical experts who have examined the skull x-rays have confirmed that the lateral x-rays show a small metallic fragment in the back of the skull. 

This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, i.e., the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used, for the same reasons that former HSCA ballistics consultant Dr. Larry Sturdivan said the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ bullet fragment. 

Oddly, in his 2005 book, Sturdivan does not even mention the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, nor does he discuss the other small back-of-head fragment that was identified by Dr. Gerald McDonnel for the HSCA, though he was surely aware of both of them. The McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object. The 6.5 mm object is 1 cm below the now-debunked cowlick entry site and 8-9 cm (3.1 to 3.5 inches) above the EOP entry site. These two fragments could only be ricochet fragments--that is the only scientifically plausible explanation. But, again, Sturdivan does not mention either of these fragments. 

However, Sturdivan does explain why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ fragment. I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

          It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

          When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (The JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)

To fully appreciate the insurmountable problems with the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand what WC apologists claim about this shot:

According to WC defenders, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine (on the floor in the front seat). Thus, in this scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge, or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed in the front of the limo. 

No credible researcher takes this scenario seriously anymore, but for many years this was the scenario that WC apologists adamantly defended--until fellow WC apologist Sturdivan, to his credit, demolished it in his 2005 book. (It had been demolished before, but only by critics, and WC apologists refused to listen to the critics' eminently scientific and logical case against it.)

However, as mentioned, Sturdivan says nothing about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm metal fragment inside the 6.5 mm object, nor does he say anything about the McDonnel fragment. Forensic science and wound ballistics tell us that no FMJ missile could have deposited the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment on/just under the outer table of the skull. They could only be ricochet fragments.

Firearms expert Howard Donahue said that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told him that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object "looked like a ricochet fragment" (Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 65). The Clark Panel did not have the benefit of OD analysis, so they did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that its image is superimposed over the image of a smaller genuine fragment. But Fisher's comment to Donahue shows that the panel members realized that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull, much less nearly half an inch away from the presumed (but now debunked) entry point in the cowlick (not to mention 3.1 to 3.5 inches away from the actual entry point that was slightly above the EOP).

There is credible eyewitness testimony that a bullet struck the curb near JFK's limo early in the shooting sequence, as many researchers have noted, and many kinds of bullets that strike concrete will send fragments flying from the impact. Donahue, although he rejected the conspiracy view, acknowledged this evidence of the curb shot and cogently argued that ricochet fragments from this bullet are the only scientifically feasible explanation for any back-of-head fragment, since no FMJ missile would have deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull. But WC apologists cannot accept this plausible scientific explanation, partly because they must account for the bullet that struck the curb near James Tague and sent a concrete chip or metal fragment streaking toward him with enough force to cut his face.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Former Secret Service agent Paul Landis's recent disclosure that he found a bullet and/or two bullet fragments in the back seat of the limo once again highlights the problems that the ballistics evidence poses for the lone-gunman theory. One of these items of evidence is the 6.5 mm object seen on the autopsy AP skull x-ray. 

One aspect of the 6.5 mm object that WC apologists cannot explain, an aspect that constitutes compelling evidence of a second gunman, is the fact that the 6.5 mm object contains--actually, is superimposed over--the image of a small genuine bullet fragment. The fragment is about 6.3 x 2.5 mm in size. OD measurements done separately by Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser confirm that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm object is metallic. Numerous forensic and other medical experts who have examined the skull x-rays have confirmed that the lateral x-rays show a small metallic fragment in the back of the skull. 

This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, i.e., the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used, for the same reasons that former HSCA ballistics consultant Dr. Larry Sturdivan said the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ bullet fragment. 

Oddly, in his 2005 book, Sturdivan does not even mention the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, nor does he discuss the other small back-of-head fragment that was identified by Dr. Gerald McDonnel for the HSCA, though he was surely aware of both of them. The McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object. The 6.5 mm object is 1 cm below the now-debunked cowlick entry site and 8-9 cm (3.1 to 3.5 inches) above the EOP entry site. These two fragments could only be ricochet fragments--that is the only scientifically plausible explanation. But, again, Sturdivan does not mention either of these fragments. 

However, Sturdivan does explain why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ fragment. I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

          It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

          When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (The JFK Myths, pp. 184-185)

To fully appreciate the insurmountable problems with the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand what WC apologists claim about this shot:

According to WC defenders, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine (on the floor in the front seat). Thus, in this scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge, or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed in the front of the limo. 

No credible researcher takes this scenario seriously anymore, but for many years this was the scenario that WC apologists adamantly defended--until fellow WC apologist Sturdivan, to his credit, demolished it in his 2005 book. (It had been demolished before, but only by critics, and WC apologists refused to listen to the critics' eminently scientific and logical case against it.)

However, as mentioned, Sturdivan says nothing about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm metal fragment inside the 6.5 mm object, nor does he say anything about the McDonnel fragment. Forensic science and wound ballistics tell us that no FMJ missile could have deposited the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment on/just under the outer table of the skull. They could only be ricochet fragments.

Firearms expert Howard Donahue said that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told him that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object "looked like a ricochet fragment" (Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 65). The Clark Panel did not have the benefit of OD analysis, so they did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that its image is superimposed over the image of a smaller genuine fragment. But Fisher's comment to Donahue shows that the panel members realized that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull, much less nearly half an inch away from the presumed (but now debunked) entry point in the cowlick (not to mention 3.1 to 3.5 inches away from the actual entry point that was slightly above the EOP).

There is credible eyewitness testimony that a bullet struck the curb near JFK's limo early in the shooting sequence, as many researchers have noted, and many kinds of bullets that strike concrete will send fragments flying from the impact. Donahue, although he rejected the conspiracy view, acknowledged this evidence of the curb shot and cogently argued that ricochet fragments from this bullet are the only scientifically feasible explanation for any back-of-head fragment, since no FMJ missile would have deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull. But WC apologists cannot accept this plausible scientific explanation, partly because they must account for the bullet that struck the curb near James Tague and sent a concrete chip or metal fragment streaking toward him with enough force to cut his face.

My disagreement with Mantik's conclusions aside, I don't recall his ever saying the small fragment on the back of the head was 6.3 mm. That's basically the size of the "fragment" he thinks is a fake. As I recall the small fragment he sees on the lateral x-ray is fair smaller than the so-called 6.5 mm fragment. Can you point me to something where he says the "real" fragment and "fake" fragment are nearly the same size? 

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

My disagreement with Mantik's conclusions aside, I don't recall his ever saying the small fragment on the back of the head was 6.3 mm. That's basically the size of the "fragment" he thinks is a fake. As I recall the small fragment he sees on the lateral x-ray is fair smaller than the so-called 6.5 mm fragment. Can you point me to something where he says the "real" fragment and "fake" fragment are nearly the same size? 

One, I confirmed the size with Dr. Mantik. He thinks 6.3 or 6.4 mm is correct. I usually qualify the height by saying something like "6.3 mm (some might say 6.4 mm)." Two, you can see this in his diagram of the fragment. The fragment is slightly shorter than the 6.5 mm object--its top does not quite go up to the top of the 6.5 mm object (see JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 8). And Mantik's diagram shows that the fragment is 2.5 mm wide at its widest point. 

Chesser confirmed Mantik's OD measurements of the fragment inside the object: it is definitely metallic. It's the object that forensic radiologist Fitzpatrick saw on the lateral x-rays when he examined them for the ARRB. Fitzpatrick admitted that the fragment does not correspond to the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray.

You might know that Mantik uses OD measurements in his practice as a radiation oncologist, and it helps that he also happens to be a physicist. 

Of the three innocent explanations for the 6.5 mm object, only one of them is even theoretically possible. Two of the three explanations (acid drop and stray metal disk in x-ray cassette) are physically impossible. That only leaves the theory that the AP skull x-ray was taken while there was a "stray metal disk" lying on the autopsy table. But WC apologists can't identify what kind of disk it could have been, can't identify a disk that was 6.5 mm in diameter, can't explain how a neatly defined notch would have been chipped from the disk, can't explain why the disk/object does not appear in any of the other skull x-rays, etc., etc. 

Leaving aside the question of where a drop of acid would have come from in the first place, since when do drops of acid include a well-defined notch that disrupts an otherwise perfectly round shape? The 6.5 mm object has a notch missing on its bottom right side (viewer’s right), but the rest of it is perfectly round. This is one of several problems with the acid-drop theory. The fatal problem with the theory is that if the 6.5 mm object were caused by an acid drop, the x-ray film's emulsion would be visibly altered at this site, but the emulsion is completely intact (Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 150).

That leaves the stray-metal-disk theories. First of all, what kind of metal disk would have been present that could have somehow dropped onto the autopsy table or gotten stuck in an x-ray film cassette during a presidential autopsy? Anyway, if a metal disk had been inside the film cassette, it would have produced a dark area at the spot of the 6.5 mm object, not a transparent one. 

If a metal disk had been lying next to JFK's head on the autopsy table when the AP x-ray was taken, it would appear on the lateral x-rays as well, but it does not. Of course, it goes without saying that if the radiologist and/or the x-ray technician had noticed a disk lying on the autopsy table after they took the AP x-ray, they would not have taken the lateral x-rays until they retook the AP x-ray.

Finally, there is the fact that multiple sets of OD measurements have proved that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but that it does contain a genuine fragment that occupies about half the space inside the object (see Mantik's diagram).

Edited September 18, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Crane]

Pretty sure that Ebersole told Custer to tape some fragments to the X-rays.This could explain the fragment.

[Pat Speer]

29 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

One, I confirmed the size with Dr. Mantik. He thinks 6.3 or 6.4 mm is correct. I usually qualify the height by saying something like "6.3 mm (some might say 6.4 mm)." Two, you can see this in his diagram of the fragment. The fragment is slightly shorter than the 6.5 mm object--its top does not quite go up to the top of the 6.5 mm object (see JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 8). And Mantik's diagram shows that the fragment is 2.5 mm wide at its widest point. 

Chesser confirmed Mantik's OD measurements of the fragment inside the object: it is definitely metallic. It's the object that forensic radiologist Fitzpatrick saw on the lateral x-rays when he examined them for the ARRB. Fitzpatrick admitted that the fragment does not correspond to the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray.

You might know that Mantik uses OD measurements in his practice as a radiation oncologist, and it helps that he also happens to be a physicist. 

Of the three innocent explanations for the 6.5 mm object, only one of them is even theoretically possible. Two of the three explanations (acid drop and stray metal disk in x-ray cassette) are physically impossible. That only leaves the theory that the AP skull x-ray was taken while there was a "stray metal disk" lying on the autopsy table. But WC apologists can't identify what kind of disk it could have been, can't identify a disk that was 6.5 mm in diameter, can't explain how a neatly defined notch would have been chipped from the disk, can't explain why the disk/object does not appear in any of the other skull x-rays, etc., etc. 

Leaving aside the question of where a drop of acid would have come from in the first place, since when do drops of acid include a well-defined notch that disrupts an otherwise perfectly round shape? The 6.5 mm object has a notch missing on its bottom right side (viewer’s right), but the rest of it is perfectly round. This is one of several problems with the acid-drop theory. The fatal problem with the theory is that if the 6.5 mm object were caused by an acid drop, the x-ray film's emulsion would be visibly altered at this site, but the emulsion is completely intact (Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 150).

That leaves the stray-metal-disk theories. First of all, what kind of metal disk would have been present that could have somehow dropped onto the autopsy table or gotten stuck in an x-ray film cassette during a presidential autopsy? Anyway, if a metal disk had been inside the film cassette, it would have produced a dark area at the spot of the 6.5 mm object, not a transparent one. 

If a metal disk had been lying next to JFK's head on the autopsy table when the AP x-ray was taken, it would appear on the lateral x-rays as well, but it does not. Of course, it goes without saying that if the radiologist and/or the x-ray technician had noticed a disk lying on the autopsy table after they took the AP x-ray, they would not have taken the lateral x-rays until they retook the AP x-ray.

Finally, there is the fact that multiple sets of OD measurements have proved that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but that it does contain a genuine fragment that occupies about half the space inside the object (see Mantik's diagram).

Thanks. I was able to find his drawing of the "6.5" fragment, in which he shows what he thinks is a real fragment beneath it. It's basically half the large fragment cut vertically, making it roughly the same height. So I was correct in remembering that it was much smaller in its width, but had forgotten that it was about the same in its height. 

[Pat Speer]

9 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Pretty sure that Ebersole told Custer to tape some fragments to the X-rays.This could explain the fragment.

Everyone to study the x-rays including Mantik has concluded that the X-rays are of Kennedy's skull, and show brain inside. So the x-rays were taken on 11-22-63. The incident described by Custer was at a later date, and involved him x-raying a skull with a bullet taped to it, or something like that. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

 

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Everyone to study the x-rays including Mantik has concluded that the X-rays are of Kennedy's skull, and show brain inside. So the x-rays were taken on 11-22-63. The incident described by Custer was at a later date, and involved him x-raying a skull with a bullet taped to it, or something like that. 

Well,I certainly believe there is something out of whack with the one X-ray that shows a fragment trail near the top of the skull.

If you happen to know,what is the white material in the X-ray at the back of the head if a dark spot is an absence of bone? Plaster of Paris?

Edited September 19, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

 

Well,I certainly believe there is something out of whack with the one X-ray that shows a fragment trail near the top of the skull.

If you happen to know,what is the white material in the X-ray at the back of the head if a dark spot is an absence of bone? Plaster of Paris?

I did a ton of research on x-rays and found that much of what we've been told, by LNs and CTs alike, is nonsense.

I have chapters about this on my website. 

In short, I discovered that, as with the rest of the medical evidence, the CT notion it was all fake is wrong and incredibly counter-productive. 

The story as pushed by CT-world has been that the official medical evidence points to a single-shooter, and that it must have been altered to do so. 

I found that this was wrong on both points. The official medical evidence is and has always been proof of more than one shooter. It's just that the autopsy doctors mis-interpreted it (probably on purpose while under pressure to claim there was but one shooter). 

No, to me, the bigger scandal begins when CT-world got its wish, and civilian doctors were granted access to the medical evidence. They moved the bullet entrance on the back of the head, and found a 6.5 mm fragment on the back of the head, etc. All of which helped them sell the single-assassin conclusion. It was bs, of course. Pure smoke. 

Unfortunately, there remains a bias among most of those who've studied the medical evidence, whereby they tend to believe the findings of the Clark Panel on down, and assume Humes, Boswell, Finch, etc, were incompetents, who couldn't even figure out on what bone they discovered and measured a bullet hole. 

There's an old saying about following the money. I've found that if one follows the "corrections" made by the Clark Panel on down one will find the true story of the medical evidence--how the autopsy doctors told the truth about what they saw but misrepresented what it meant, and how subsequent panels realized the true implications of what the autopsy doctors said they saw, and decided to say they must have been blind idiots. I mean, ANYTHING, but admit the truth: that the official evidence--the autopsy protocol, x-rays, and photographs--is clear-cut evidence for more than on shooter.

As far as white and black on x-rays, it's not what most people think. It's not as simple as white being bone and black being no bone. What is shown on the x-rays is RELATIVE density. An inch of brain might be as white as a thin slice of bone, etc. Making matters worse, moreover, is that the relative density changes based on the voltage of the x-rays, the length of exposure, and the distance between the x-ray tube and subject . So...two x-rays taken on the same machine only moments apart can look quite different.

Here are two slides from my website demonstrating this point. 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks. I was able to find his drawing of the "6.5" fragment, in which he shows what he thinks is a real fragment beneath it. It's basically half the large fragment cut vertically, making it roughly the same height. So I was correct in remembering that it was much smaller in its width, but had forgotten that it was about the same in its height. 

The 6.5 mm object is not a large fragment. It is a ghosted image that was superimposed over the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. This is why there is no fragment that corresponds to the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays, which would be a physical impossibility if the object were metallic.

Dr. Mantik confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is an artifact with high-magnification analysis and then with repeated optical-density (OD) measurements. Dr. Chesser did his own OD measurements, and his measurements confirmed Dr. Mantik's measurements.

Dr. Mantik points out that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is only 3-4 mm thick but that the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement shows that it would be nearly 40 mm thick if it were actually metallic; in contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is 2 mm thick on the lateral x-rays, which is consistent with its OD measurement of 1.44 (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 24). 

In OD measurements, larger numbers mean less density, while smaller numbers mean more density. As mentioned, the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement is an impossible 0.60, 0.84 lower than that of the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Even more revealing, the OD measurement of the four dental fillings combined is 0.76, 0.16 higher than the 6.5 mm object's measurement. Thus, if the 6.5 mm object were a bullet fragment, it would be denser than all four dental fillings combined, an obvious impossibility and a clear indication of forgery. 

We should remember the fact that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are at the same vertical level, since the small fragment is actually inside the 6.5 mm object when viewed on the AP x-ray. Nobody knew that the small fragment is visible inside the 6.5 mm object until Dr. Mantik discovered this with high-magnification analysis--and then confirmed the fragment's existence with OD measurements.

Placing the small fragment inside the 6.5 mm object ensured that the two objects would align vertically. This is important because if the 6.5 mm object were higher or lower than where it is now, it would not align vertically with the small fragment, and nobody would have ever identified the small fragment as the companion image of the 6.5 mm object, and the forgery of the 6.5 mm object would have been obvious. Dr. Mantik explains this point further:

          On the AP X-ray, the authentic metal fragment lay at the anatomic right side of the 6.5 mm object, but it was located entirely inside of the 6.5 mm object. In fact, it appeared that the darkroom worker had positioned his double-exposed 6.5 mm image to precisely match the (anatomic) right border of the authentic metal fragment. Furthermore, by doing so, he had guaranteed that the 6.5 mm image would not be left without a partner image on the lateral X-ray. On the other hand, if he had not matched the 6.5 mm image to an authentic metal fragment, the 6.5 mm object would have had no partner image on the lateral X-ray, and the forgery would have been obvious. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, pp. 24-25)

This vertical alignment was part of the reason that so many experts erroneously concluded that the two images were the same fragment/one fragment. For example, the HSCA medical panel noted that the AP x-ray shows the 6.5 mm object to be "in approximately the same vertical plane as in the above-described lateral view" (7 HSCA 109). 

The forgery of the 6.5 mm object was not perfect, but it was good enough to fool every expert who examined the x-rays for over three decades. The forgers should have created an object on the lateral x-rays that matched the 6.5 mm object in size, density, and brightness, but this would have required a more complicated double-exposure than the 6.5 mm object, and they may have assumed that placing the 6.5 mm object over the image of the small back-of-head fragment would suffice (it did for over three decades). Plus, the science of optical density analysis of x-rays was barely in its infancy in 1963, so the forgers had no idea that one day a radiation oncologist who also happened to be a physicist would detect their forgery with OD analysis. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Charles Blackmon]

This is a very succinct explanation of important fake autopsy evidence. I understand it much better now! 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The 6.5 mm object is not a large fragment. It is a ghosted image that was superimposed over the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. This is why there is no fragment that corresponds to the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays, which would be a physical impossibility if the object were metallic.

Dr. Mantik confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is an artifact with high-magnification analysis and then with repeated optical-density (OD) measurements. Dr. Chesser did his own OD measurements, and his measurements confirmed Dr. Mantik's measurements.

Dr. Mantik points out that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is only 3-4 mm thick but that the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement shows that it would be nearly 40 mm thick if it were actually metallic; in contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is 2 mm thick on the lateral x-rays, which is consistent with its OD measurement of 1.44 (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 24). 

In OD measurements, larger numbers mean less density, while smaller numbers mean more density. As mentioned, the 6.5 mm object's OD measurement is an impossible 0.60, 0.84 lower than that of the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Even more revealing, the OD measurement of the four dental fillings combined is 0.76, 0.16 higher than the 6.5 mm object's measurement. Thus, if the 6.5 mm object were a bullet fragment, it would be denser than all four dental fillings combined, an obvious impossibility and a clear indication of forgery. 

We should remember the fact that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are at the same vertical level, since the small fragment is actually inside the 6.5 mm object when viewed on the AP x-ray. Nobody knew that the small fragment is visible inside the 6.5 mm object until Dr. Mantik discovered this with high-magnification analysis--and then confirmed the fragment's existence with OD measurements.

Placing the small fragment inside the 6.5 mm object ensured that the two objects would align vertically. This is important because if the 6.5 mm object were higher or lower than where it is now, it would not align vertically with the small fragment, and nobody would have ever identified the small fragment as the companion image of the 6.5 mm object, and the forgery of the 6.5 mm object would have been obvious. Dr. Mantik explains this point further:

          On the AP X-ray, the authentic metal fragment lay at the anatomic right side of the 6.5 mm object, but it was located entirely inside of the 6.5 mm object. In fact, it appeared that the darkroom worker had positioned his double-exposed 6.5 mm image to precisely match the (anatomic) right border of the authentic metal fragment. Furthermore, by doing so, he had guaranteed that the 6.5 mm image would not be left without a partner image on the lateral X-ray. On the other hand, if he had not matched the 6.5 mm image to an authentic metal fragment, the 6.5 mm object would have had no partner image on the lateral X-ray, and the forgery would have been obvious. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, pp. 24-25)

This vertical alignment was part of the reason that so many experts erroneously concluded that the two images were the same fragment/one fragment. For example, the HSCA medical panel noted that the AP x-ray shows the 6.5 mm object to be "in approximately the same vertical plane as in the above-described lateral view" (7 HSCA 109). 

The forgery of the 6.5 mm object was not perfect, but it was good enough to fool every expert who examined the x-rays for over three decades. The forgers should have created an object on the lateral x-rays that matched the 6.5 mm object in size, density, and brightness, but this would have required a more complicated double-exposure than the 6.5 mm object, and they may have assumed that placing the 6.5 mm object over the image of the small back-of-head fragment would suffice (it did for over three decades). Plus, the science of optical density analysis of x-rays was barely in its infancy in 1963, so the forgers had no idea that one day a radiation oncologist who also happened to be a physicist would detect their forgery with OD analysis. 

The supposedly 6.5 mm fragment on the AP x-ray lines up perfectly with the fragment found behind the eye. I pointed this out years ago. Mantik's argument against this is that he "thinks" the fragment behind the eye on the lateral x-ray is just dis-placed bone. He avoids the incredible coincidence of there being a fragment exactly where a number of autopsy witnesses said there was a fragment, and instead tells his readers the fragment recovered at autopsy was recovered from the middle of the forehead, which he has to know is false. 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The supposedly 6.5 mm fragment on the AP x-ray lines up perfectly with the fragment found behind the eye. I pointed this out years ago. Mantik's argument against this is that he "thinks" the fragment behind the eye on the lateral x-ray is just dis-placed bone. He avoids the incredible coincidence of there being a fragment exactly where a number of autopsy witnesses said there was a fragment, and instead tells his readers the fragment recovered at autopsy was recovered from the middle of the forehead, which he has to know is false. 

Pat, you are sadly and badly mistaken here. Here is a list of the medical experts who have examined the autopsy skull x-rays and have determined that the 6.5 mm object is not behind the right eye but is at the back of the head, where Dr. Mantik places it:

-- The four members of the Clark Panel (Dr. Carnes, Dr. Fisher, Dr. Morgan, and Dr. Moritz)
-- The nine members of the HSCA medical panel (Dr. Weston, Dr. Loquvam, Dr. Coe, Dr. Petty, Dr. Spitz, Dr. Rose, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Baden, and Dr. Joseph Davis)
-- Dr. David O. Davis (not to be confused with HSCA medical panel member Dr. Joseph Davis)
-- Dr. Lattimer
-- Dr. McDonnel
-- Dr. Chesser
-- Dr. Aguilar
-- Dr. Henkelmann
-- The three ARRB forensic experts (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, and Dr. Kirschner)
-- Dr. Randy Robertson (radiologist)
-- Dr. Larry Sturdivan (HSCA wound ballistics consultant)
-- Kathy Cunningham (RN)
-- Dr. Eric Haubner (MD)

Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiology consultant, acknowledged that the small back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays is not the companion image of the 6. 5mm object, and that the small fragment behind the right eye is not the companion image either:

          No object directly and clearly corresponding to the bright, 6.5 mm wide radio-opaque object in the A-P X-Ray could be identified by the consultant on the lateral skull X-Rays. Although there is a mere trace of some additional density near the fragment bilocation at the vertex of the skull, the consultant did not feel this object was anywhere near the density/brightness required for it to correspond to the bright, radio-opaque object on the A-P X-Ray. After briefly speculating that the small metallic density behind the right eye in the lateral X-Rays might correspond to the bright radio-opaque density in the A-P X-Ray, this idea was abandoned because neither the locations nor the density/brightness of the 2 objects are consistent.

Furthermore, regardless of where you want to believe the 6.5 mm object is, nobody denies that the lateral x-rays show a small bullet fragment in the rear of the skull. 

Also, the main point of the OP for this thread is that the 6.3 x 2.5 m fragment and the McDonnel fragment at the back of the head cannot have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. 
 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Pat, you are sadly and badly mistaken here. Here is a list of the medical experts who have examined the autopsy skull x-rays and have determined that the 6.5 mm object is not behind the right eye but is at the back of the head, where Dr. Mantik places it:

-- The four members of the Clark Panel (Dr. Carnes, Dr. Fisher, Dr. Morgan, and Dr. Moritz)
-- The nine members of the HSCA medical panel (Dr. Weston, Dr. Loquvam, Dr. Coe, Dr. Petty, Dr. Spitz, Dr. Rose, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Baden, and Dr. Joseph Davis)
-- Dr. David O. Davis (not to be confused with HSCA medical panel member Dr. Joseph Davis)
-- Dr. Lattimer
-- Dr. McDonnel
-- Dr. Chesser
-- Dr. Aguilar
-- Dr. Henkelmann
-- The three ARRB forensic experts (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, and Dr. Kirschner)
-- Dr. Randy Robertson (radiologist)
-- Dr. Larry Sturdivan (HSCA wound ballistics consultant)
-- Kathy Cunningham (RN)
-- Dr. Eric Haubner (MD)

Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiology consultant, acknowledged that the small back-of-head fragment on the lateral x-rays is not the companion image of the 6. 5mm object, and that the small fragment behind the right eye is not the companion image either:

          No object directly and clearly corresponding to the bright, 6.5 mm wide radio-opaque object in the A-P X-Ray could be identified by the consultant on the lateral skull X-Rays. Although there is a mere trace of some additional density near the fragment bilocation at the vertex of the skull, the consultant did not feel this object was anywhere near the density/brightness required for it to correspond to the bright, radio-opaque object on the A-P X-Ray. After briefly speculating that the small metallic density behind the right eye in the lateral X-Rays might correspond to the bright radio-opaque density in the A-P X-Ray, this idea was abandoned because neither the locations nor the density/brightness of the 2 objects are consistent.

Furthermore, regardless of where you want to believe the 6.5 mm object is, nobody denies that the lateral x-rays show a small bullet fragment in the rear of the skull. 

Also, the main point of the OP for this thread is that the 6.3 x 2.5 m fragment and the McDonnel fragment at the back of the head cannot have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. 
 

Oh my. The whole issue first rose up because the large fragment seen on the AP x-ray and ASSUMED to be on the back off the head can't be spotted on the back of the head on the lateral x-ray. This led Mantik to claim it must have been added to the AP x-ray. After studying the magnification and angle of the head in the x-rays, and matching up the AP and lateral x-rays, I realized that the fragment is not on the back of the head but behind the right eye, exactly where Humes et al said they found the largest fragment--and precisely where they presented it on CE 388. That can hardly be a coincidence. 

And now you're trying to tell me that most everyone agrees that the fragment they can't see on the back of the head is actually on the back of the head. They can't see it. But you think we should take their word for it. Priceless.

I mean, think about it. IF there is a 6.3 or 6.5 mm fragment on the far back of the head, as claimed by Morgan on down, who is to say that that fragment is not the fragment on the AP? And no, you can't assume the whiteness of an object on an AP x-ray will match the whiteness of that object on a lateral x-ray. As demonstrated on the slides above, that's not the way it works. It's just not. 

[Michael Griffith]

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my. The whole issue first rose up because the large fragment seen on the AP x-ray and ASSUMED to be on the back off the head can't be spotted on the back of the head on the lateral x-ray. This led Mantik to claim it must have been added to the AP x-ray. After studying the magnification and angle of the head in the x-rays, and matching up the AP and lateral x-rays, I realized that the fragment is not on the back of the head but behind the right eye, exactly where Humes et al said they found the largest fragment--and precisely where they presented it on CE 388. That can hardly be a coincidence. 

And now you're trying to tell me that most everyone agrees that the fragment they can't see on the back of the head is actually on the back of the head. They can't see it. But you think we should take their word for it. Priceless.

I mean, think about it. IF there is a 6.3 or 6.5 mm fragment on the far back of the head, as claimed by Morgan on down, who is to say that that fragment is not the fragment on the AP? And no, you can't assume the whiteness of an object on an AP x-ray will match the whiteness of that object on a lateral x-ray. As demonstrated on the slides above, that's not the way it works. It's just not. 

I can't believe you're saying this nonsensical stuff. Did Mantik offend your grandmother or something? What is with your seemingly pathological refusal to acknowledge the crucial, historic nature of his research and your seemingly reflexive urge to disagree with him even when he is obviously right? 

Your argument about Humes and the largest fragment is sheer poppycock. Humes said the largest fragment was the 7x2 mm fragment that he removed behind the right eye. The 7x2 mm fragment obviously, clearly, and self-evidently is **not** the largest fragment seen on the AP x-ray. A child can see this, for crying out loud. The 6.5 mm object is the largest "fragment" on the AP x-ray. You can see the 7x2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. A child can see that they are separate objects. What in the world are you talking about?

Similarly, your argument about the whiteness of objects in relation to the 6.5 mm object and the lack of a companion object on the lateral x-rays is just baffling and erroneous. Dr. Fitzpatrick was deeply troubled by the fact that the lateral x-rays show no companion image for the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. He was so troubled that he took an extra day to examine the x-rays to see if he could detect a companion image for the 6.5 mm object. He certainly didn't think that it was no big deal that the whiteness of the 6.5 mm object is not seen in the small fragment on the lateral x-rays. Let's read what he said again:

          Although there is a mere trace of some additional density near the fragment bilocation at the vertex of the skull, the consultant did not feel this object was anywhere near the density/brightness required for it to correspond to the bright, radio-opaque object on the A-P X-Ray. 

Fitzpatrick also rejected your curious argument that the other, smaller fragment in the area behind the right orbit is the companion image for the 6.5 mm object. 

And we're not just talking about whiteness anyway. We're talking about the established science of optical density (OD) measurement. Multiple OD measurements done separately by Mantik and Chesser confirm that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, but that within the object there is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm metal fragment. We're talking hard science here. Are you saying that Mantik and Chesser fabricated their OD measurements, that Mantik was merely seeing things when he examined the 6.5 mm object under high magnification?

Speaking of which, we're also talking about high-magnification analysis. Mantik examined the x-rays under high magnification, and when he did so he was able to see the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object. Then, he confirmed his high-magnification analysis with OD measurements, and Dr. Arthur Haas, chief of medical physics at Kodak at the time, reviewed Mantik's OD measurements and findings and saw no problem with them.

According to you, the 27 medical experts who say that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head are wrong, and you are right. 

And how about the McDonnel fragment? Are you going to tell me that it, too, somehow is actually in the front of the skull, even though McDonnel specified that it is in the galea in the back of the head?

Edited September 20, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Joe Bauer]

22 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The supposedly 6.5 mm fragment on the AP x-ray lines up perfectly with the fragment found behind the eye. I pointed this out years ago. Mantik's argument against this is that he "thinks" the fragment behind the eye on the lateral x-ray is just dis-placed bone. He avoids the incredible coincidence of there being a fragment exactly where a number of autopsy witnesses said there was a fragment, and instead tells his readers the fragment recovered at autopsy was recovered from the middle of the forehead, which he has to know is false. 

 

Just reviewed an interview video of Dr. Jim Carrico ( taken in 1997 ) who was the first attending physician to JFK when he was wheeled into Parkland's Trauma Room 1 in their ER department on 11,22,1963.

Carrico related how he was desperately trying to secure JFK's breathing ability as a first priority.

In his time with JFK he never once thought of turning JFK's body as this was antithetical to his first need treatment focus at hand.

Soon, the room was filled with other top doctors who took over JFK's treatment.

Carrico did however have a good look at the massive wound next to and just above JFK's right ear area. Carrico firmly stated that to him that this was a "blow out" wound.

And that it was made by a missile exiting JFK's skull.

Carrico mentioned the other back of JFK's skull wound but didn't see it himself, again because he never got in position to see it working on JFK's airwaves only and with JFK's body being in the facing up prone position at all times.

According to several people who did see that back of the head JFK wound up close in those first second and minutes to one hour time ( Clint Hill and Dr. Robert McClelland) that wound was also a "blow out" one.

With a chunk of JFK's skull simply "gone" to the size degree of at least 5 inches across.

So, how can JFK's head have "two" blow out wounds several inches apart? One in the back of the head. The other on the upper right side next to and just above his right ear?