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

[Pat Speer]

39 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

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?

I asked this same question, Joe, and then fell down a rabbit hole. The witnesses saw but one large head wound. Some made out it was on the far back of the head. Some made out it was a bit further forward. I ended up concluding this second batch of witnesses were largely correct, in part because their recollections are consistent with the autopsy photos and x-rays--which absolutely positively suggest more than one shooter. It made no sense to me that "someone" would fake the evidence to suggest a conspiracy. 

I discuss this in great detail in chapters 18c and 18d of my website. 

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

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?

Oh my. Mantik's whole journey into darkness started when he realized THE "6.5 mm" fragment visible on the AP x-ray was NOT on the back of the head. This led him to conclude it had been added to the AP. He later concluded that this added "fragment" over-lapped a much smaller fragment, not readily visible to the naked eye, NEAR the back of the head. But he has never, to my knowledge, said Russells Morgan and Fisher and the HSCA were correct, and that a 6.5 mm fragment is on the back of the head, adjacent to the cowlick entrance. For one, Mantik believes, as I, and most to have studied the evidence over the past few decades, that the entrance wound observed on the back of the head was observed down by the EOP. For two, Mantik believes the Harper fragment derived from the middle of the back of the head. So where...ON the back of the head...could there be such a fragment? 

Now, as to why and how my disagreements with Mantik became personal, you'd have to look through the archives of this forum. For many years, Fetzer and his minions waved Mantik in my face whenever I discussed the medical evidence. "How dare I disagree with the top medical expert, blah blah blah"? They then pushed him to respond, which led him to publish a blithering attack article, which I then dismantled on my website. In any event, this feud led the Wecht family to invite me to "debate" Mantik at their next conference. I didn't want to debate--but agreed we could have back-to-back presentations on the same evidence, so the audience could decide for themselves. Mantik went first. In his presentation he changed course on several of his findings, and acknowledged I was correct on a major bone of contention. I was grateful for this because my presentation was over-long, and this allowed me to cut some stuff out. But I also appreciated that he would fly across the country, and stand before the likes of McAdams, and admit I was correct on a major bone of contention. As far as I was concerned, that was the end of our "feud".

A few years later, moreover, I found myself standing behind Mantik at an Aguilar conference. He had challenged Don Thomas' findings on the dictabelt, and most everyone was whispering about him, the same way some had once whispered about me. "Is he insane? How dare he question the great blah blah blah"? In any event, I now see Mantik and myself as two very different peas in a pod. We think differently, and aren't afraid to upset others. 

So, in sum, your insinuation there is a consensus on the medical evidence, and that Mantik is at the center of this consensus, falls flat. I know many of the "top medical experts" on the JFK case, and they don't exactly defer to Mantik's findings. One of his recent conclusions--that there were three headshots--has gained zero point zero support, outside the Horne/Chesser echo chamber. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my. Mantik's whole journey into darkness started when he realized THE "6.5 mm" fragment visible on the AP x-ray was NOT on the back of the head. This led him to conclude it had been added to the AP. He later concluded that this added "fragment" over-lapped a much smaller fragment, not readily visible to the naked eye, NEAR the back of the head. But he has never, to my knowledge, said Russells Morgan and Fisher and the HSCA were correct, and that a 6.5 mm fragment is on the back of the head, adjacent to the cowlick entrance. For one, Mantik believes, as I, and most to have studied the evidence over the past few decades, that the entrance wound observed on the back of the head was observed down by the EOP. For two, Mantik believes the Harper fragment derived from the middle of the back of the head. So where...ON the back of the head...could there be such a fragment? 

Now, as to why and how my disagreements with Mantik became personal, you'd have to look through the archives of this forum. For many years, Fetzer and his minions waved Mantik in my face whenever I discussed the medical evidence. "How dare I disagree with the top medical expert, blah blah blah"? They then pushed him to respond, which led him to publish a blithering attack article, which I then dismantled on my website. In any event, this feud led the Wecht family to invite me to "debate" Mantik at their next conference. I didn't want to debate--but agreed we could have back-to-back presentations on the same evidence, so the audience could decide for themselves. Mantik went first. In his presentation he changed course on several of his findings, and acknowledged I was correct on a major bone of contention. I was grateful for this because my presentation was over-long, and this allowed me to cut some stuff out. But I also appreciated that he would fly across the country, and stand before the likes of McAdams, and admit I was correct on a major bone of contention. As far as I was concerned, that was the end of our "feud".

A few years later, moreover, I found myself standing behind Mantik at an Aguilar conference. He had challenged Don Thomas' findings on the dictabelt, and most everyone was whispering about him, the same way some had once whispered about me. "Is he insane? How dare he question the great blah blah blah"? In any event, I now see Mantik and myself as two very different peas in a pod. We think differently, and aren't afraid to upset others. 

So, in sum, your insinuation there is a consensus on the medical evidence, and that Mantik is at the center of this consensus, falls flat. I know many of the "top medical experts" on the JFK case, and they don't exactly defer to Mantik's findings. One of his recent conclusions--that there were three headshots--has gained zero point zero support, outside the Horne/Chesser echo chamber. 

Pat, I am just baffled by your comments here. I fear you have severely misunderstood Dr. Mantik's position. If you read Dr. Mantik's writings, including his two most recent books, he unmistakably argues that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. As he discusses, this is why it is such a big deal that the lateral x-rays contain no companion image for the 6.5 mm object.

Are you perhaps getting confused over Dr. Mantik's observation that on the AP x-ray the 6.5 mm object is "seen within JFK's right orbit"? He's not saying that the object is in or near the right orbit in its horizontal position, but that on the AP x-ray this is where it appears because the AP x-ray is a straight-on front-to-back view that does not show the object's horizontal location within the skull. Again, this is why it is such a big deal that the lateral x-rays do not show a companion image for the 6.5 mm object.

If the 6.5 mm object were near the right orbit, then it would not matter that there's no such object in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays. Plus, if the 6.5 mm object were near the right orbit, there would be a companion image for the object in this location on the lateral x-rays, but there is none.

Remember that Humes told the ARRB that he did not see the 6.5 mm object. He specifically noted that he did not see a fragment nearly as big as the 6.5 mm object. The largest fragment he saw was the 7 x 2 mm fragment behind the right orbit, which he removed. The next-largest fragment was the 3 x 1 mm fragment, which he also removed. 

Anyway, the main point of this thread is that the two back-of-head fragments could not have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

32 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Pat, I am just baffled by your comments here. I fear you have severely misunderstood Dr. Mantik's position. If you read Dr. Mantik's writings, including his two most recent books, he unmistakably argues that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. As he discusses, this is why it is such a big deal that the lateral x-rays contain no companion image for the 6.5 mm object.

Are you perhaps getting confused over Dr. Mantik's observation that on the AP x-ray the 6.5 mm object is "seen within JFK's right orbit"? He's not saying that the object is in or near the right orbit in its horizontal position, but that on the AP x-ray this is where it appears because the AP x-ray is a front-to-back view that does not show the object's horizontal location within the skull. Again, this is why it is such a big deal that the lateral x-rays do not show a companion image for the 6.5 mm object.

If the 6.5 mm object were near the right orbit, then it would not matter that there's no such object in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays. Plus, if the 6.5 mm object were near the right orbit, there would be a companion image for the object in this location on the lateral x-rays, but there is none.

Remember that Humes told the ARRB that he did not see the 6.5 mm object. He specifically noted that he did not see a fragment nearly as big as the 6.5 mm object. The largest fragment he saw was the 7 x 2 mm fragment behind the right orbit, which he removed. The next-largest fragment was the 3 x 1 mm fragment, which he also removed. 

Anyway, the main point of this thread is that the two back-of-head fragments could not have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Gosh. 

1. Yes, I know. The lateral x-ray does not show a companion for the 6.5 mm fragment apparent in the AP...where Mantik and others have looked for it. To be clear, the Clark Panel, without checking with those who'd attended the autopsy, or even studying their statements, conjured up that the large fragment shown on the AP x-ray was on the back of the head...beside an entrance in the cowlick. Mantik and others then recognized that heck, there is NO fragment apparent in that location. So he theorized that this "fragment" was added to the AP x-ray. 

2. 20 years ago, I came along, and started double-checking much of what I'd read in the conspiracy literature. For the first few years, I was intimidated by radiology and deferred to Mantik's expertise. When I finally looked into it, however, I realized that Mantik and others had made numerous mistakes, and had made numerous false claims. But one of these was that the large fragment removed at autopsy can be observed on the middle of the forehead. This was a fabrication, first told by Dr. Lattimer, which hides that the large fragment was removed from behind the right eye and not from the middle of the forehead.. And it's worse than that. When one looks behind the right eye on the lateral x-ray--VOILA--one sees a fragment of some sort that is not on the pre-mortem x-ray, that matches precisely the location of the large fragment on the AP x-ray. Now, Mantik has said that he thinks this is a piece of bone, and not bullet, and that he thinks it's just a coincidence that it's in the exact location described by the doctors. But this is weak sauce, IMO. The doctors specified that they'd found some smaller bullet fragments right beside the large fragment, behind the right eye. And these can be viewed in both the AP and lateral x-rays...by the so-called 6.5 mm fragment, and NOT by the small fragment in or on the middle of the forehead. 

3. As far as witnesses... On my website I have a number of witnesses who, when pointed out the large fragment on the AP x-ray, ultimately said they thought it was or could be the large fragment found behind the right eye. Dr. Humes is among them. 

[Michael Griffith]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Gosh. 

1. Yes, I know. The lateral x-ray does not show a companion for the 6.5 mm fragment apparent in the AP...where Mantik and others have looked for it. To be clear, the Clark Panel, without checking with those who'd attended the autopsy, or even studying their statements, conjured up that the large fragment shown on the AP x-ray was on the back of the head...beside an entrance in the cowlick. Mantik and others then recognized that heck, there is NO fragment apparent in that location. So he theorized that this "fragment" was added to the AP x-ray. 

2. 20 years ago, I came along, and started double-checking much of what I'd read in the conspiracy literature. For the first few years, I was intimidated by radiology and deferred to Mantik's expertise. When I finally looked into it, however, I realized that Mantik and others had made numerous mistakes, and had made numerous false claims. But one of these was that the large fragment removed at autopsy can be observed on the middle of the forehead. This was a fabrication, first told by Dr. Lattimer, which hides that the large fragment was removed from behind the right eye and not from the middle of the forehead.. And it's worse than that. When one looks behind the right eye on the lateral x-ray--VOILA--one sees a fragment of some sort that is not on the pre-mortem x-ray, that matches precisely the location of the large fragment on the AP x-ray. Now, Mantik has said that he thinks this is a piece of bone, and not bullet, and that he thinks it's just a coincidence that it's in the exact location described by the doctors. But this is weak sauce, IMO. The doctors specified that they'd found some smaller bullet fragments right beside the large fragment, behind the right eye. And these can be viewed in both the AP and lateral x-rays...by the so-called 6.5 mm fragment, and NOT by the small fragment in or on the middle of the forehead. 

3. As far as witnesses... On my website I have a number of witnesses who, when pointed out the large fragment on the AP x-ray, ultimately said they thought it was or could be the large fragment found behind the right eye. Dr. Humes is among them. 

You're repeating yourself about the large fragment and the 6.5 mm object and ignoring the reasons your argument is impossible. 

There is a fragment in the back of the head, but it is the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object. The 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head, but it is not a fragment. You keep dancing around this central point. No expert has disputed that there is a fragment in the back of the skull on the lateral x-rays, but it is not the companion image of the 6.5 mm object. 

You are either misrepresenting or are confused about Dr. Mantik's position on the location of the 6.5 mm object. As I've said, you can see in his writings that one of his main points about the object is that there is no companion image for it on the lateral x-rays but that there should be. This would be a silly, meaningless argument if the 6.5 mm object were near the right orbit. Similarly, if the 6.5 mm object were near the right orbit, there should be a companion image for it near the right orbit on the lateral x-rays. I don't know you can keep avoiding these central, obvious facts. 

And, no, Humes did not tell the ARRB that he saw the 6.5 mm fragment. Let's see what Humes said when he was specifically asked about the 6.5 mm object:

_______________________________________

Page 212

Q. Dr. Humes, you're now looking at X-ray 5-B No. 1. I'd like to ask you whether you have previously seen that X-ray. 
A. I probably have. It's antero-posterior view of the skull and the jaw. . . .
________________________________________
Page 213 

Q. Did you notice that what at least appears to be a radio-opaque fragment during the autopsy?
A. Well, I told you we received one--we retrieved one or two, and--of course, you get distortion in the X-ray as far as size goes. The ones we retrieved I didn't think were of the same size as this would lead you to believe. 
Q. Did you think they were larger or smaller?
A. Smaller. Smaller, considerably smaller. I mean, these other little things would be about the size of what--I'm not sure what that is or whether that's a defect. I'm not enough of a radiologist to be able to tell you. But I don't remember retrieving anything of that size. 
Q. Well, that was going to be a question, whether you had identified that as a possible fragment and then removed it.
A. Truthfully, I don't remember anything that size when I looked at these films. They all were more of the size of these others. 

________________________________________

The idea that Humes mistook the 6.5 mm object for the 7 x 2 mm fragment is ludicrous. You can see both objects on the AP x-ray. The 6.5 mm object is far bigger than the 7 x 2 mm fragment, as Humes explained to the ARRB.

And, you're aware that Finck and Boswell both said they did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, right?

Dr. Davis, one of the HSCA's forensic consultants, said the following about the 6.5 mm object's location--not having OD measurements available, he assumed it was a metal fragment and said it was imbedded in the outer table of the skull 3-4 cm above the lambda:

          There is a metallic fragment about 9 or 1O cm above the external occipital protuberance, which metallic fragment is apparently imbedded in the outer table of the skull. 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. (David O. Davis, "Examination of JFK Autopsy X-Rays," 7 HSCA 222, Addendum D)
 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

51 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

You're repeating yourself about the large fragment and the 6.5 mm object and ignoring the reasons your argument is impossible. 

There is a fragment in the back of the head, but it is the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object. The 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head, but it is not a fragment. You keep dancing around this central point. No expert has disputed that there is a fragment in the back of the skull on the lateral x-rays, but it is not the companion image of the 6.5 mm object. 

You are either misrepresenting or are confused about Dr. Mantik's position on the location of the 6.5 mm object. As I've said, you can see in his writings that one of his main points about the object is that there is no companion image for it on the lateral x-rays but that there should be. This would be a silly, meaningless argument if the 6.5 mm object were near the right orbit. Similarly, if the 6.5 mm object were near the right orbit, there should be a companion image for it near the right orbit on the lateral x-rays. I don't know you can keep avoiding these central, obvious facts. 

And, no, Humes did not tell the ARRB that he saw the 6.5 mm fragment. Let's see what Humes said when he was specifically asked about the 6.5 mm object:

_______________________________________

Page 212

Q. Dr. Humes, you're now looking at X-ray 5-B No. 1. I'd like to ask you whether you have previously seen that X-ray. 
A. I probably have. It's antero-posterior view of the skull and the jaw. . . .
________________________________________
Page 213 

Q. Did you notice that what at least appears to be a radio-opaque fragment during the autopsy?
A. Well, I told you we received one--we retrieved one or two, and--of course, you get distortion in the X-ray as far as size goes. The ones we retrieved I didn't think were of the same size as this would lead you to believe. 
Q. Did you think they were larger or smaller?
A. Smaller. Smaller, considerably smaller. I mean, these other little things would be about the size of what--I'm not sure what that is or whether that's a defect. I'm not enough of a radiologist to be able to tell you. But I don't remember retrieving anything of that size. 
Q. Well, that was going to be a question, whether you had identified that as a possible fragment and then removed it.
A. Truthfully, I don't remember anything that size when I looked at these films. They all were more of the size of these others. 

________________________________________

The idea that Humes mistook the 6.5 mm object for the 7 x 2 mm fragment is ludicrous. You can see both objects on the AP x-ray. The 6.5 mm object is far bigger than the 7 x 2 mm fragment, as Humes explained to the ARRB.

And, you're aware that Finck and Boswell both said they did not see the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy, right?

Dr. Davis, one of the HSCA's forensic consultants, said the following about the 6.5 mm object's location--not having OD measurements available, he assumed it was a metal fragment and said it was imbedded in the outer table of the skull 3-4 cm above the lambda:

          There is a metallic fragment about 9 or 1O cm above the external occipital protuberance, which metallic fragment is apparently imbedded in the outer table of the skull. 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. (David O. Davis, "Examination of JFK Autopsy X-Rays," 7 HSCA 222, Addendum D)
 

This is all material discussed ad nauseam on my website. You keep missing the central point. The-called 6.5 mm fragment is NOT on the back of the head. Mantik and I agree on that. It is not in dispute. So why do you keep saying it is? 

As far as the 7 by 2 fragment, etc... Humes et al said the fragment retrieved at autopsy was retrieved from behind the eye. The fragment spotted by Lattimer was on the middle of the forehead, possibly on the outside of the skull. This is around 2 inches away. Mantik himself, moreover, admits that the fragment now in the archives could not possibly be the forehead fragment. But could it be the so-called 6.5 mm fragment? YES. John Hunt found photographs of the largest fragment taken before it was broken into pieces for testing by the FBI. And it could easily be the fragment on the x-rays.

 

As far as Humes et al's thoughts on the so-called 6.5 mm fragment and whether or not it was the fragment removed on 11-22-63...

From chapter 18b: 

 

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, one might assume 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 shared his faith the fragment was the one removed at autopsy. In 1994, when asked about the largest fragment on the x-rays by Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Boswell asserted "The largest piece was up along the frontal sinus, right." When shown the lateral x-ray by the ARRB, moreover, 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 Agents Roy Kellerman and William Greer told the Warren Commission. On 3-9-64 Kellerman told the commission that both he and Greer were shown the x-rays during the autopsy and that the only fragment he recalled being removed came from "inside above the eye, the right eye." Shortly thereafter, Greer testified in a similar fashion. He recalled: "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.

And this wasn't the last time Kellerman spoke on the matter. In 1977, when asked about his role in the autopsy by an HSCA investigator, Kellerman recalled 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."

So what did these agents have to say about this fragment? On the night of the autopsy, FBI agents James Sibert and Frank O’Neill signed a receipt as follows: “I hereby acknowledge receipt of a missile removed by Commander James J Humes.” These agents were therefore intimately involved in the recovery of this missile (which they would later insist was the fragment). One might think then that they'd be sure to remember if it was the largest fragment on the x-ray and from where it was removed. 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. It states: "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 fragment removed from behind the eye 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 no, Sibert and O'Neill aren't the end of our parade of witnesses for the fragment behind the eye. That honor belongs to Bethesda chief of surgery Dr. David Osborne. On 4-5-90, Osborne (then an Admiral) wrote JFK researcher Joanne Braun. He told her that the fatal bullet "hit in the occipital region of the posterior skull which blew off the posterior top of his skull and impacted and disintegrated against the interior surface of the frontal bone just above the level of the eyes."

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 above and behind the right eye.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is all material discussed ad nauseam on my website. You keep missing the central point. The-called 6.5 mm fragment is NOT on the back of the head. Mantik and I agree on that. It is not in dispute. So why do you keep saying it is? 

As far as the 7 by 2 fragment, etc... Humes et al said the fragment retrieved at autopsy was retrieved from behind the eye. The fragment spotted by Lattimer was on the middle of the forehead, possibly on the outside of the skull. This is around 2 inches away. Mantik himself, moreover, admits that the fragment now in the archives could not possibly be the forehead fragment. But could it be the so-called 6.5 mm fragment? YES. John Hunt found photographs of the largest fragment taken before it was broken into pieces for testing by the FBI. And it could easily be the fragment on the x-rays.

 

As far as Humes et al's thoughts on the so-called 6.5 mm fragment and whether or not it was the fragment removed on 11-22-63...

From chapter 18b: 

 

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, one might assume 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 shared his faith the fragment was the one removed at autopsy. In 1994, when asked about the largest fragment on the x-rays by Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Boswell asserted "The largest piece was up along the frontal sinus, right." When shown the lateral x-ray by the ARRB, moreover, 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 Agents Roy Kellerman and William Greer told the Warren Commission. On 3-9-64 Kellerman told the commission that both he and Greer were shown the x-rays during the autopsy and that the only fragment he recalled being removed came from "inside above the eye, the right eye." Shortly thereafter, Greer testified in a similar fashion. He recalled: "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.

And this wasn't the last time Kellerman spoke on the matter. In 1977, when asked about his role in the autopsy by an HSCA investigator, Kellerman recalled 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."

So what did these agents have to say about this fragment? On the night of the autopsy, FBI agents James Sibert and Frank O’Neill signed a receipt as follows: “I hereby acknowledge receipt of a missile removed by Commander James J Humes.” These agents were therefore intimately involved in the recovery of this missile (which they would later insist was the fragment). One might think then that they'd be sure to remember if it was the largest fragment on the x-ray and from where it was removed. 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. It states: "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 fragment removed from behind the eye 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 no, Sibert and O'Neill aren't the end of our parade of witnesses for the fragment behind the eye. That honor belongs to Bethesda chief of surgery Dr. David Osborne. On 4-5-90, Osborne (then an Admiral) wrote JFK researcher Joanne Braun. He told her that the fatal bullet "hit in the occipital region of the posterior skull which blew off the posterior top of his skull and impacted and disintegrated against the interior surface of the frontal bone just above the level of the eyes."

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 above and behind the right eye.

Pat, come on. You must be kidding. The 7x2 mm fragment was the largest fragment in the skull at the autopsy, and it was removed from behind the right eye.  This is further proof that the 6.5 mm object was neither in the skull nor on the x-rays during the autopsy. 

To believe otherwise, one would have to make the absurd assumption, which so far you are making, that the 7x2 mm fragment was the 6.5 mm object. A child can look at the AP x-ray and see that the 7x2 mm fragment is above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and that the 6.5 mm object is much larger than the 7x2 mm fragment. Anyone who is not legally blind can readily see this fact on the AP x-ray.

Dr. Aguilar and RN Cunningham explain the appearance of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray in relation to its horizontal location and the verbiage that it is seen "within the right orbit." They explain that, of course, the object is not actually in or near the right orbit but that it merely projects through the right orbit on the AP x-ray:

          It is visible on the “anterior-posterior” X-ray as a very dense, 6.5-mm object that sits squarely in the middle of the right bony eye socket, or “orbit.”

          This AP (Anterior-Posterior) X-Ray from JFK's autopsy shows a 6.5 mm notched circular object just left of the nose; this is alleged to be a cross-sectional fragment of the bullet which struck the head. Several implausibilities surround this object, as noted herein.

          Of course, the object is not really “in” the eye socket; it is in the rear of the skull. It just “projects” through the orbit on the X-ray which “sees” through all the layers at once. (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm)

X-ray technician Edward Reed’s ARRB testimony is worth revisiting. Yes, Reed claimed that he saw the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy. However, Reed also said that he could identify the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays and that it is just above the right supraorbital rim on the lateral x-rays (ARRB interview transcript, 10/21/97, p. 89). This is one big giveaway that Reed was either lying or badly mistaken. 

After studying the AP and lateral skull x-rays for many hours over the course of two days, Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB forensic radiologist, saw no such object in the area of the right orbit on the lateral x-ray, nor did the two other ARRB forensic experts. Likewise, 24 other experts who’ve studied the x-rays have not seen the 6.5 mm object in the right-orbital area on the lateral x-ray. Because it's not there on the lateral x-rays, nor is it in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays. It's a ghosted image, as Dr. Mantik has proved with OD measurements--he was even able to duplicate how the image was added to the x-ray.

Regarding Jerrol Custer, an analysis of his ARRB testimony shows that he did not necessarily say that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy. Even one WC apologist has admitted that Custer's comments are unclear and do not unequivocally say that he saw the object during the autopsy. Plus, in his many hours of conversation with Dr. Mantik about the autopsy x-rays, Custer never once mentioned that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy (Dr. Mantik has confirmed this to me in an email).

Finally, three points bear repeating:

One, the AP x-ray shows both the 7x2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object. The 7x2 mm fragment is above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object. So there is just no way that the 7x2 mm fragment, which Humes removed, is the 6.5 mm object.

Two, two separate sets of OD measurements, one done by Dr. Mantik and the other done by Dr. Chesser, scientifically prove that the 6.5 mm object cannot be metallic and also prove that there is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object.

Three, regardless of where you want to believe the 6.5 mm object is located, this does not change the fact that the two back-of-head fragments could not have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Pat, come on. You must be kidding. The 7x2 mm fragment was the largest fragment in the skull at the autopsy, and it was removed from behind the right eye.  This is further proof that the 6.5 mm object was neither in the skull nor on the x-rays during the autopsy. 

To believe otherwise, one would have to make the absurd assumption, which so far you are making, that the 7x2 mm fragment was the 6.5 mm object. A child can look at the AP x-ray and see that the 7x2 mm fragment is above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and that the 6.5 mm object is much larger than the 7x2 mm fragment. Anyone who is not legally blind can readily see this fact on the AP x-ray.

Dr. Aguilar and RN Cunningham explain the appearance of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray in relation to its horizontal location and the verbiage that it is seen "within the right orbit." They explain that, of course, the object is not actually in or near the right orbit but that it merely projects through the right orbit on the AP x-ray:

          It is visible on the “anterior-posterior” X-ray as a very dense, 6.5-mm object that sits squarely in the middle of the right bony eye socket, or “orbit.”

          This AP (Anterior-Posterior) X-Ray from JFK's autopsy shows a 6.5 mm notched circular object just left of the nose; this is alleged to be a cross-sectional fragment of the bullet which struck the head. Several implausibilities surround this object, as noted herein.

          Of course, the object is not really “in” the eye socket; it is in the rear of the skull. It just “projects” through the orbit on the X-ray which “sees” through all the layers at once. (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm)

X-ray technician Edward Reed’s ARRB testimony is worth revisiting. Yes, Reed claimed that he saw the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy. However, Reed also said that he could identify the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays and that it is just above the right supraorbital rim on the lateral x-rays (ARRB interview transcript, 10/21/97, p. 89). This is one big giveaway that Reed was either lying or badly mistaken. 

After studying the AP and lateral skull x-rays for many hours over the course of two days, Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB forensic radiologist, saw no such object in the area of the right orbit on the lateral x-ray, nor did the two other ARRB forensic experts. Likewise, 24 other experts who’ve studied the x-rays have not seen the 6.5 mm object in the right-orbital area on the lateral x-ray. Because it's not there on the lateral x-rays, nor is it in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays. It's a ghosted image, as Dr. Mantik has proved with OD measurements--he was even able to duplicate how the image was added to the x-ray.

Regarding Jerrol Custer, an analysis of his ARRB testimony shows that he did not necessarily say that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy. Even one WC apologist has admitted that Custer's comments are unclear and do not unequivocally say that he saw the object during the autopsy. Plus, in his many hours of conversation with Dr. Mantik about the autopsy x-rays, Custer never once mentioned that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy (Dr. Mantik has confirmed this to me in an email).

Finally, three points bear repeating:

One, the AP x-ray shows both the 7x2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object. The 7x2 mm fragment is above and to the left of the 6.5 mm object. So there is just no way that the 7x2 mm fragment, which Humes removed, is the 6.5 mm object.

Two, two separate sets of OD measurements, one done by Dr. Mantik and the other done by Dr. Chesser, scientifically prove that the 6.5 mm object cannot be metallic and also prove that there is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object.

Three, regardless of where you want to believe the 6.5 mm object is located, this does not change the fact that the two back-of-head fragments could not have come from the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Geez. 

It's really quite simple. 

1. The doctors and a number of observers said they removed a large fragment from behind the right eye. 

2. There is a fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-ray that matches up with the location of the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray.

3. The doctors said as well that they removed some smaller fragments from right next to this large fragment. 

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

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

6. But there are no small fragments adjacent to this forehead fragment. 

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

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

 

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

Edited September 21, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

It's really quite simple. 

1. The doctors and a number of observers said they removed a large fragment from behind the right eye. 

2. There is a fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-ray that matches up with the location of the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray.

I can't believe you are saying this stuff. I am starting to wonder about your motive.

First off, the fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-rays does **not** match the location of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. What in the world are you talking about? You can't be serious. 

The fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-rays is the 7x2 mm fragment seen on the AP x-ray.

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

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

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

3. The doctors said as well that they removed some smaller fragments from right next to this large fragment. 

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

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

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

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

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

6. But there are no small fragments adjacent to this forehead fragment. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense. I'm almost led to suspect that you are a closet lone-gunman theorist. 

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

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

Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds

Edited September 22, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

It's really quite simple. 

1. The doctors and a number of observers said they removed a large fragment from behind the right eye. 

2. There is a fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-ray that matches up with the location of the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray.

I can't believe you are saying this stuff. I am starting to wonder about your motive. No, sorry. It is your motives that are to be questioned. Whenever I've pointed out Mantik's errors, someone has come out of the woodwork to attack. This same thing would happen on the McAdams Forum whenever I pointed out Lattimer's errors. Fanboys will be fanboys. 

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

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

You keep ignoring the all-important, determinative fact that on the AP x-ray the 6.5 mm object is below and to the right of the 7x2 mm fragment. You cannot tell me with a straight face that you can't see this on the AP x-ray. Here's a copy of that x-ray with the two objects' locations noted by arrows: LINK. No. I'm not ignoring anything. You are the one ignoring the obvious fact that the fragment on the forehead is NOT behind the right eye. 

Look at it, Pat. The 6.5 mm object and the 7x2 mm fragment are two different objects. A child can see this. Yes, and a child can see that what has been called the 7 x 2 fragment is NOT behind the right eye. Lattimer ASSUMED this was the fragment removed at autopsy. Mantik examined the fragment in the Archives and said it is not this fragment. It follows then that the fragment removed at autopsy was not the forehead fragment. So where did it come from? Well, geez, maybe just maybe...from behind the right eye...

And Humes said he removed the largest fragment, which he specified was the 7x2 mm fragment. Yes, he measured A fragment as 7 x 2, but he retrieved this from behind the eye. There is no reason to assume he was referring to the fragment pointed out by Lattimer, which Mantik describes as 7 x 2.  Humes insisted till the end that the largest fragment was found behind the eye. Was he lying? 

3. The doctors said as well that they removed some smaller fragments from right next to this large fragment. 

Yes, and "this large fragment" is the 7x2 mm fragment. I already quoted Humes explaining to the ARRB that the 6.5 mm object was much larger than any of the fragments he removed. The autopsy report says he removed two fragments, 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm, and says nothing about a 6.5 mm fragment. Humes could not possibly have missed the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray if it had been there during the autopsy. There are a lot of problems with this. One is that Humes said he'd retrieved a 7 mm fragment. Well, this proves that a "6.5. mm" fragment would not be too large. As far as precision... 6.5 mm vs. 7 mm or whatever... you must know that one can not measure bullets or bullet fragments off x-rays, unless one knows exactly where the fragment is located, and even then it's inexact. The front of JFK's skull was magnified 20% compared to the back of his head on the A-P x-ray. Humes was not a radiologist and probably failed to realize this...when looking at the x-rays...decades later.  

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

Yes, and the fragment behind the right eye is the 7x2 m fragment. The 6.5 mm object is in the outer table of the skull on the back of the head, as 27 experts have confirmed, including all members of the Clark Panel, the HSCA medical panel, and the ARRB medical panel. What??? You can't have it both ways. You can't hide behind the Clark Panel's nonsense and pretend there's a 6.5 mm fragment on the back of the head, while defending Mantik's claim there is no such fragment and that the fragment on the A-P was added in a darkroom. The fragment on the back of the head story is a hoax. Mantik and I agree on that. 

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

You are simply ignoring facts that refute your argument and just keep repeating your argument. Again, Mantik has made it crystal clear that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. Again, for the umpteenth time, and as Mantik has repeatedly noted, this is why it is such a big deal that the lateral x-rays contain no companion image (in the back of the head or anywhere else) for the 6.5 mm object.  Yikes. Mantik does not believe the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P is on the back of the head. Heck, he believes there was no skull where that fragment would be located. It appears you are confused by the nature of x-rays. One CAN NOT determine the location of a fragment from one view. That is why they take multiple views. 

6. But there are no small fragments adjacent to this forehead fragment. 

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

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

The only confusion is with you. 27 experts, who come from both sides of the fence, agree that the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. Plus, OD measurements have erased all doubt about the 6.5 mm object and the small fragment inside it. The consensus you claim just isn't true. As you know, the ARRB talked to some experts and they couldn't even find an entrance on the back of the head, let alone a sliver of bullet right next to said entrance.  

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

Are you just going to keep going around and around with this stuff? Go read Mantik's writings for the last 10 years. Read his last three books. He notes that a major indication of fraud is that the lateral x-rays show no image in the back of head, or anywhere else, that corresponds with the 6.5 mm object seen in the AP x-ray. You are either severely misrepresenting Mantin's views or you have severely misunderstood them. Another dodge. You repeat something I've been saying as if it refutes what I've been saying. Yes, Mantik says there is no fragment on the back of the head in the A-P. And he is right. But he should have looked elsewhere for this fragment...like where the doctors said they'd found the largest fragment--behind the right eye.

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

Nonsense. 'm almost led to suspect that you are a closet lone-gunman theorist. And I am beginning to suspect you are a Fetzerite. 

Not a single one of the FMJ bullets in the WC ballistics tests left a snowstorm of tiny fragments. Not one. None of them struck tangentially. 

Furthermore, you ignored my point that the main point of this thread is that the back-of-head fragments--the one in the galea and the one in the outer table--could not have come from FMJ ammo, for the reasons that Sturdivan explained regarding the 6.5 mm object's origin. Make up your mind. Mantik says there are no such fragments. Is he correct, or not? And, if not, why is it that NONE of the experts studying the computer-enhanced x-rays could make out what Russells Morgan and Fisher claimed to see on the unenhanced x-rays? 

Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds

My responses in bold. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's back up and note some key facts:

-- Humes said he removed the largest fragment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And note this statement:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of them struck tangentially.

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

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

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

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

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

How can you not know these things? How?

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

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

[Charles Blackmon]

This is an intriguing debate- wish I had time right now to follow the whole thing. Hopefully later. 

[Pat Speer]

14 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's back up and note some key facts:

-- Humes said he removed the largest fragment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And note this statement:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of them struck tangentially.

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

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

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

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

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

How can you not know these things? How?

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

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

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

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

If you took the time to read chapters 18a and 18b you would see all this for yourself. 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Eddy Bainbridge]

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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

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

If you took the time to read chapters 18a and 18b you would see all this for yourself. 

 

 

I would like to endorse Pat's analysis of the fragment and also urge all interested parties to read what he has written. He has yet to repeat on this thread an important part of his analysis : It is vital to understand the angle at which the xrays were taken. I think Mantik failed to take this into account and it means he misplaces the fragment. Mantik is backed by too many people on this. Its really bad for the research community. Read for youselves!

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I would like to endorse Pat's analysis of the fragment and also urge all interested parties to read what he has written. He has yet to repeat on this thread an important part of his analysis : It is vital to understand the angle at which the xrays were taken. I think Mantik failed to take this into account and it means he misplaces the fragment. Mantik is backed by too many people on this. Its really bad for the research community. Read for youselves!

Thanks, Eddie, first, for actually reading, and second for admitting you think I was onto something. A lot or people pick favorites and then throw them at others: "How dare you disagree with..." and so on. As stated, when I started out on this journey, I deferred to a number of people: Weisberg, Thompson, Wecht, Aguilar, Mantik, etc. The more I read, the more I found they were not to be relied upon, however. They're human. They make errors. I think this really hit home with Thompson, the inspiration for my research, and a man I greatly admire. I realized he was in error in his section on Emmett Hudson in Six Seconds in Dallas. And it was worse than that: he quoted an FBI report on Hudson in support of his impression--and put into the report what he wanted to be true, and not what was actually said. Well, this surprised. me, so I asked him about this, right here on the forum. And he admitted he'd screwed up. (I think we agreed that he'd probably had some notes on what he thought Hudson was saying, and screwed up and put them in the book as if they were a direct quote from an FBI report.) In any event, I found it liberating. Since then I have pointed out errors by Weisberg, Thompson, Aguilar, etc, mostly without incident. Unfortunately, the same hasn't been true for Mantik. When I have pointed out his errors--or simply disagreed with his interpretations--I have been attacked. This goes back 15 years or more. It's kinda weird to me. Well, the bulk of these attacks came from James Fetzer's circle. Fetzer had crowned Mantik "the number one expert on the JFK medical evidence" or some such thing. But it goes beyond that. Apparently, a lot of people are desperate to believe he's correct about all things x-ray, even though he's had to admit he was wrong on a number of issues. And some of it is just basic stuff--stuff one could find out by reading the introductory chapter to a textbook. For example, a number people have told me, citing Mantik, that no fragment on the lateral x-ray could possibly be the large fragment on the A-P x-ray, because nothing is that white. This is not true. First of all, settings on the x-ray machine may have changed, and secondly, the A-P image may have been exposed longer by the x-ray techs, etc. And then there's this...by Mantik's own admission, the large fragment overlays a smaller fragment near the back of the head. Well, the whiteness is cumulative--the thickness of the smaller fragment would make the fragment much whiter on the A-P view than on the lateral view, (that is, assuming it is not overlaying a fragment on the lateral view). So you shouldn't expect to find a fragment as white as the large fragment on the A-P x-ray on the lateral x-ray. That's just common sense. 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Pat Speer