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

[Michael Griffith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Eddy Bainbridge

Edited September 25, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Eddy Bainbridge

Congratulations. You're wearing me out, Michael. 

A couple of points, nonetheless. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited September 25, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

22 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Congratulations. You're wearing me out, Michael. 

A couple of points, nonetheless. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited September 26, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

Are you familiar with the term "discovery", Michael? I

I have made dozens of discoveries regarding the Kennedy assassination. 

Here are a few...

I was able to locate the first published ballistics study of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition. This showed head wounds far smaller than Kennedy's head wound on heads fired upon from much closer than Kennedy was fired upon. 

I arranged to have Oswald's light brown shirt photographed using color film, and proved the shirt was actually "reddish" and undoubtedly the shirt Oswald said he had worn to work. 

Using recent scans of the evidence photos, I was able to prove Lt. Day fibbed when he said HE had ripped the palm print from Box D, and signed it on the day of the shooting. I was also able to prove that Box A was missing from the sniper's nest on the 23rd, and was replaced by another box for the sniper's nest re-creation photos taken on the 25th. 

And what about the bag? I was able to show that the bag removed from the building on the 22nd was of different proportion than the bag as later photographed, AND that the Warren Report switched the purported locations of the prints found on the bag--which oh-so-conveniently helped sell the Oswald-did-it theory. 

All of this stuff and much much more was missed by previous researchers and investigators. And "discovered" by me. 

So why should the medical evidence be different?

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

@Pat Speer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Roentgenograms of this fragment reveal minute particles of metal in the bone at this margin Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above-described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge from the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered These measure 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm. (p. 4)

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

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

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

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

Edited September 27, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

14 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

@Pat Speer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Roentgenograms of this fragment reveal minute particles of metal in the bone at this margin Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above-described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge from the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered These measure 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm. (p. 4)

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

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

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

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

A couple of points.

That is some serious cherry-picking there, Michael. Are you going out for the Olympics?

First, you ignore where Humes placed the fragment and pretend "we" know better. And then you repeatedly refer to CE 843, and ignore the fragment as first photographed. 

As far as the OD measurements... Don't you kinda wonder why forensic radiologists refuse to support Mantik's methodology and findings? I mean, I'm a layman. It's not a surprise that not one radiology "expert" has offered support for my findings, IF they have even heard of them. But Mantik, a doctor, has been begging for support for decades now. Heck, he even paid someone to publish a paper, so he could claim his work had been "peer-reviewed". And yet, no support. Year after year, book after book. 

You need to get over your hero worship and read at least some of my website. If you do, you'll see that I too once had heroes...until I took a closer look. Now they're just guys, right about some stuff, wrong about some stuff. As far as Mantik, he was never a hero, but I deferred to his expertise on radiology matters, before looking into this stuff for myself..

Here, to show my disagreement with him is not personal, I will say some nice stuff about him. 

1. He is always polite when I meet him. 

2. He is willing to stick by his guns, even when under fire. (I was at a mini-conference at which he challenged the CT orthodoxy regarding the dictabelt evidence, and man, did he piss people off. There were questions about his cognitive abilities, etc.) But I respect that he didn't back down and suspect he was correct. 

3. He is correct about other stuff, as well. While reading through his articles, I found inspiration in a number of his claims.

He demonstrated that a path from the back wound location to the neck wound location would pass through bone. This confirmed what Dr. Nichols had claimed previously. This helped lead me to reject the single-bullet theory.

He said the "trail of fragments" on the x-rays was in an area of the skull where there was purportedly no brain. This led me to realize that it was worse than that, and that the trail of fragments is absolutely positively on the outside of the skull. 

He said the forehead fragment on the x-rays (which he mistakenly believes is the fragment removed at autopsy) is not the fragment in the archives (purported to be the fragment removed at autopsy). Well, this led me to double-check his assumptions, and realize that the forehead fragment was NOT the fragment removed at autopsy. And this, in turn, led me to look on the lateral x-ray where the doctors said they found the fragment they removed, and realize that it was right there all along, hiding in plain sight. 

P.S. I remember now that one of my statements isn't true, and that some of my findings have been confirmed by X-ray professionals. a dozen years ago or so, I joined a radiology forum and asked a few questions. Well, I received support for a couple of my suspicions. Several techs verified that the fractures low on the A-P x-ray were in the eye socket, and said occipital fractures would not be that clear on an A-P view. And another told me he'd stand by what Fred Hodges said. Well, at that time the conclusions of Hodges--a consultant for the Rocky commission--were not widely available. When I got access to them, however, I received a surprise. Hodges said the autopsy photos and x-rays confirmed the entrance wound described in the autopsy report. IOW, he rejected the conclusions of his former colleague, Russell Morgan, and said the entrance was on the occipital bone, and not four inches higher on the parietal bone, as claimed by Morgan. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

22 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

First, you ignore where Humes placed the fragment and pretend "we" know better. And then you repeatedly refer to CE 843, and ignore the fragment as first photographed. 

No, I do not ignore where Humes placed the fragment. I quoted him at length on this very point: above and behind the right eye, and he said that fragment, the largest fragment, was the 7x2 mm fragment, which is above and behind the right eye.

I do not ignore CE 843 "as first photographed." Surely you know that CE 843 does not match the 6.5 mm object or the 7x2 mm fragment. This isn't even a close call.

As far as the OD measurements... Don't you kinda wonder why forensic radiologists refuse to support Mantik's methodology and findings? I mean, I'm a layman. It's not a surprise that not one radiology "expert" has offered support for my findings, IF they have even heard of them. 

This is a poor excuse for dismissing the historic OD measurements. When Dr. Mantik tried to get forensic radiologist Dr. Fitzpatrick to review his OD measurements, he refused. And what about all the medical experts who support Dr. Mantik's OD findings: Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, Dr. Henkelmann, Dr. Haas, and Dr. Wecht? Don't they count? Do you think Dr. Chesser "erred" when he did his own OD measurements, or that he falsified his measurements to agree with Dr. Mantik's? Really?

Why do you suppose that Team Lone Gunman has not gotten a single medical expert to do his own OD measurements on the skull x-rays and to publish them, or even to review Dr. Mantik's OD measurements?

You need to get over your hero worship and read at least some of my website. 

I do no hero worshipping. I don't agree with Dr. Mantik on a few issues, especially the acoustical evidence. You need to get over your abject refusal to acknowledge that some evidence was altered or planted.

He said the forehead fragment on the x-rays (which he mistakenly believes is the fragment removed at autopsy) is not the fragment in the archives (purported to be the fragment removed at autopsy). Well, this led me to double-check his assumptions, and realize that the forehead fragment was NOT the fragment removed at autopsy. And this, in turn, led me to look on the lateral x-ray where the doctors said they found the fragment they removed, and realize that it was right there all along, hiding in plain sight. 

I've already refuted this impossible scenario. Humes clearly said that the largest fragment he removed was the 7x2 mm fragment, as I've proved. He said the other fragment was 3x1 mm. No such fragments are seen in CE 843, but CE 843 is supposed to be the two fragments that Humes removed. Nor do the CE 843 fragments support the idea that Humes's "largest fragment" was the 6.5 mm object. Unless we close our eyes and ignore geometry, there is no way those fragments could have formed a perfectly round object with a neat semi-circular notch on the bottom-right side, i.e., the 6.5 mm object. 

And I again point out that not a single medical expert has identified your slice, which you claim is the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, as a bullet fragment. No one. 

I also repeat the fact that all of the ARRB, Clark Panel, and HSCA medical experts placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, as does Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Henkelmann, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Mantik. 

P.S. When I got access to them, however, I received a surprise. Hodges said the autopsy photos and x-rays confirmed the entrance wound described in the autopsy report. IOW, he rejected the conclusions of his former colleague, Russell Morgan, and said the entrance was on the occipital bone, and not four inches higher on the parietal bone, as claimed by Morgan. 

Yes, Pat, but if the autopsy brain photos are authentic, then there is no way the entry wound was where the autopsy report places it. This was the main objection that the HSCA medical experts raised against the EOP site. Do you remember the exchange that Finck had with Loquvam, when Loquvam pointed out that the entry wound could not have been near the EOP because the brain photos show absolutely no damage to the cerebellum, and when Finck admitted he could not explain this contradiction? I discussed this in my thread "The Autopsy Doctors' Rear Head Entry Site vs. the Autopsy Photos of the Brain" (LINK, ).

Also, when Humes and Boswell jointly testified before the HSCA, Dr. Charles Petty politely called their attention to this problem, noting that not only do the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum but also no damage to the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes. Petty said that the panel wondered how this could be if "this wound were way low":

          Dr. PETTY: Well, we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain, and if this wound were way low, we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes such as are shown in Figure 21 Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes and this has concerned us right down the line as to where precisely the inshoot wound was and this is why we found ourselves in a quandary and one of the reasons that we very much wanted to have you come down today. (7 HSCA 259)

Take your pick: Either admit that the brain photos do not show JFK's brain or repudiate the EOP entry site and be left with no identifiable rear entry site.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

First, you ignore where Humes placed the fragment and pretend "we" know better. And then you repeatedly refer to CE 843, and ignore the fragment as first photographed. 

No, I do not ignore where Humes placed the fragment. I quoted him at length on this very point: above and behind the right eye, and he said that fragment, the largest fragment, was the 7x2 mm fragment, which is above and behind the right eye.

I do not ignore CE 843 "as first photographed." Surely you know that CE 843 does not match the 6.5 mm object or the 7x2 mm fragment. This isn't even a close call.

As far as the OD measurements... Don't you kinda wonder why forensic radiologists refuse to support Mantik's methodology and findings? I mean, I'm a layman. It's not a surprise that not one radiology "expert" has offered support for my findings, IF they have even heard of them. 

This is a poor excuse for dismissing the historic OD measurements. When Dr. Mantik tried to get forensic radiologist Dr. Fitzpatrick to review his OD measurements, he refused. And what about all the medical experts who support Dr. Mantik's OD findings: Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, Dr. Henkelmann, Dr. Haas, and Dr. Wecht? Don't they count? Do you think Dr. Chesser "erred" when he did his own OD measurements, or that he falsified his measurements to agree with Dr. Mantik's? Really?

Why do you suppose that Team Lone Gunman has not gotten a single medical expert to do his own OD measurements on the skull x-rays and to publish them, or even to review Dr. Mantik's OD measurements?

You need to get over your hero worship and read at least some of my website. 

I do no hero worshipping. I don't agree with Dr. Mantik on a few issues, especially the acoustical evidence. You need to get over your abject refusal to acknowledge that some evidence was altered or planted.

He said the forehead fragment on the x-rays (which he mistakenly believes is the fragment removed at autopsy) is not the fragment in the archives (purported to be the fragment removed at autopsy). Well, this led me to double-check his assumptions, and realize that the forehead fragment was NOT the fragment removed at autopsy. And this, in turn, led me to look on the lateral x-ray where the doctors said they found the fragment they removed, and realize that it was right there all along, hiding in plain sight. 

I've already refuted this impossible scenario. Humes clearly said that the largest fragment he removed was the 7x2 mm fragment, as I've proved. He said the other fragment was 3x1 mm. No such fragments are seen in CE 843, but CE 843 is supposed to be the two fragments that Humes removed. Nor do the CE 843 fragments support the idea that Humes's "largest fragment" was the 6.5 mm object. Unless we close our eyes and ignore geometry, there is no way those fragments could have formed a perfectly round object with a neat semi-circular notch on the bottom-right side, i.e., the 6.5 mm object. 

And I again point out that not a single medical expert has identified your slice, which you claim is the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, as a bullet fragment. No one. 

I also repeat the fact that all of the ARRB, Clark Panel, and HSCA medical experts placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, as does Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Henkelmann, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Mantik. 

P.S. When I got access to them, however, I received a surprise. Hodges said the autopsy photos and x-rays confirmed the entrance wound described in the autopsy report. IOW, he rejected the conclusions of his former colleague, Russell Morgan, and said the entrance was on the occipital bone, and not four inches higher on the parietal bone, as claimed by Morgan. 

Yes, Pat, but if the autopsy brain photos are authentic, then there is no way the entry wound was where the autopsy report places it. This was the main objection that the HSCA medical experts raised against the EOP site. Do you remember the exchange that Finck had with Loquvam, when Loquvam pointed out that the entry wound could not have been near the EOP because the brain photos show absolutely no damage to the cerebellum, and when Finck admitted he could not explain this contradiction? I discussed this in my thread "The Autopsy Doctors' Rear Head Entry Site vs. the Autopsy Photos of the Brain" (LINK, ).

Also, when Humes and Boswell jointly testified before the HSCA, Dr. Charles Petty politely called their attention to this problem, noting that not only do the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum but also no damage to the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes. Petty said that the panel wondered how this could be if "this wound were way low":

          Dr. PETTY: Well, we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain, and if this wound were way low, we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes such as are shown in Figure 21 Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes and this has concerned us right down the line as to where precisely the inshoot wound was and this is why we found ourselves in a quandary and one of the reasons that we very much wanted to have you come down today. (7 HSCA 259)

Take your pick: Either admit that the brain photos do not show JFK's brain or repudiate the EOP entry site and be left with no identifiable rear entry site.

Yikes.  All of your points are addressed on my website, which you really should read. 

A couple of quick points.

1. Your claim the fragment Humes removed is the fragment Mantik claims is the one he removed is just bizarre. Not only did Humes and others say the fragment was behind the eye, he had a drawing created showing it to be behind the eye, inches away from where Mantik claims it was. He also told the ARRB he thought the so-called 6.5 mm fragment was the fragment he'd removed at autopsy. To top things off, Mantik admits the forehead fragment is not the fragment removed at autopsy. Now, to be clear, he thinks it was, but that it mysteriously got switched. ANYTHING but admit he could be wrong. I mean, he repeats with regularity that Humes removed the forehead fragment, when Humes and others insisted the fragment he re moved was behind the eye. Mantik rarely admits this, but when he does he dismisses the claims of numerous witness with the wave of a hand. They said it was behind the eye but I know better because...because...well, they said it was 7 x 2 and I believe the forehead fragment is 7 x 2 or close enough. But that's not the way it works.  X-rays are a 2 dimensional projection for a 3 dimensional object. If you took a a silhouette photo of a tall and skinny person from a distance, while the person was standing sideways, you might think it was a post or pillar. But with the person facing the camera? It would be readily identifiable as a person. The supposed 6.5 mm fragment is reportedly a slice of bullet. Well, how wide would that slice be? Whether or not my identification of the fragment is correct, one can not reasonably dispute that the large fragment on the A-P x-ray could be the fragment removed at autopsy. There's no way around it.

2. Oh that's right, the OD's... You really need to read my chapters on the x-rays and Mantik to understand the scope of it. But let me say this. There's a reason Fitzpatrick and others keep their distance from Mantik. 

 

P.S. I already posted this, but apparently you failed to look at it. 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Yikes.  All of your points are addressed on my website, which you really should read. 

A couple of quick points.

1. Your claim the fragment Humes removed is the fragment Mantik claims is the one he removed is just bizarre. Not only did Humes and others say the fragment was behind the eye, he had a drawing created showing it to be behind the eye, inches away from where Mantik claims it was. He also told the ARRB he thought the so-called 6.5 mm fragment was the fragment he'd removed at autopsy. To top things off, Mantik admits the forehead fragment is not the fragment removed at autopsy. Now, to be clear, he thinks it was, but that it mysteriously got switched. ANYTHING but admit he could be wrong. I mean, he repeats with regularity that Humes removed the forehead fragment, when Humes and others insisted the fragment he re moved was behind the eye. Mantik rarely admits this, but when he does he dismisses the claims of numerous witness with the wave of a hand. They said it was behind the eye but I know better because...because...well, they said it was 7 x 2 and I believe the forehead fragment is 7 x 2 or close enough. But that's not the way it works.  X-rays are a 2 dimensional projection for a 3 dimensional object. If you took a a silhouette photo of a tall and skinny person from a distance, while the person was standing sideways, you might think it was a post or pillar. But with the person facing the camera? It would be readily identifiable as a person. The supposed 6.5 mm fragment is reportedly a slice of bullet. Well, how wide would that slice be? Whether or not my identification of the fragment is correct, one can not reasonably dispute that the large fragment on the A-P x-ray could be the fragment removed at autopsy. There's no way around it.

2. Oh that's right, the OD's... You really need to read my chapters on the x-rays and Mantik to understand the scope of it. But let me say this. There's a reason Fitzpatrick and others keep their distance from Mantik. 

P.S. I already posted this, but apparently you failed to look at it. 

Are you just not actually reading my replies? Humes did NOT say that he thought the 6.5 mm object was the largest fragment that he removed. As I documented earlier, he said the opposite: he said that the fragments he removed were "considerably smaller" than the 6.5 mm object. And Boswell said he was "sure" that they didn't find a fragment as large as the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy. How long are you going to keep ignoring these facts?

The autopsy report says the two fragments were "irregularly shaped." The 6.5 mm object is perfectly round with a neatly cut semi-circular notch on the bottom-right side. And none of the fragments in CE 843 could reasonably be described as "irregular" in shape, not to mention that there is no 7x2 mm or 3x1 mm fragment among them.

Moreover, if the CE 843 fragments once formed a single fragment, there is no way that fragment would have formed a perfectly round object with a neat half-circle cut from its bottom-right side. Come on, Pat. Look at them. 

And, again, where are the two fragments that Humes described? Where are they? Are you saying he badly mismeasured both fragments? But, even if he blundered in both measurements, we have the AP x-ray that shows the 7x2 mm fragment, and the HSCA medical experts confirmed that it is 7x2 mm and is in the right location to be described as above and behind the right orbit. As I've proved, in his WC testimony Humes specifically and clearly said that the 7x2 mm fragment was the largest fragment he removed. 

In addition, the shape of the 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray is indeed "irregular." It looks like a small, disfigured club. 

Not only must you assume that the 6.5 mm object is not on the back of the head but is near the right orbit, you must also assume (1) that the slice on the lateral x-rays that vertically corresponds with the back-of-head fragment is metallic, and (2) that your slice is the partner image of the 6.5 mm object. Yet, not a single expert has identified that slice as a bullet fragment, and your theory would leave the back-of-head fragment with no conceivable partner image on the lateral x-rays, a physical impossibility.

Fitzpatrick would not engage with Mantik over the OD measurements because he knew he would not be able to explain them away. Dr. Mantik is a world-class radiation oncologist and also a former professor of physics. His medical research has been published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Dr. Chesser did his own OD measuremens and confirmed Mantik's OD measurements. Drs. Haas, Henkelmann, Aguilar, and Wecht have endorsed Mantik's OD measurements.

Finally, I notice you avoided the cold, hard fact that if the brain photos are authentic, no bullet could have entered at the EOP site. This is lock bang, open and shut. 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

41 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Are you just not actually reading my replies? Humes did NOT say that he thought the 6.5 mm object was the largest fragment that he removed. As I documented earlier, he said the opposite: he said that the fragments he removed were "considerably smaller" than the 6.5 mm object. And Boswell said he was "sure" that they didn't find a fragment as large as the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy. How long are you going to keep ignoring these facts?

The autopsy report says the two fragments were "irregularly shaped." The 6.5 mm object is perfectly round with a neatly cut semi-circular notch on the bottom-right side. And none of the fragments in CE 843 could reasonably be described as "irregular" in shape, not to mention that there is no 7x2 mm or 3x1 mm fragment among them.

Moreover, if the CE 843 fragments once formed a single fragment, there is no way that fragment would have formed a perfectly round object with a neat half-circle cut from its bottom-right side. Come on, Pat. Look at them. 

And, again, where are the two fragments that Humes described? Where are they? Are you saying he badly mismeasured both fragments? But, even if he blundered in both measurements, we have the AP x-ray that shows the 7x2 mm fragment, and the HSCA medical experts confirmed that it is 7x2 mm and is in the right location to be described as above and behind the right orbit. As I've proved, in his WC testimony Humes specifically and clearly said that the 7x2 mm fragment was the largest fragment he removed. 

In addition, the shape of the 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray is indeed "irregular." It looks like a small, disfigured club. 

Not only must you assume that the 6.5 mm object is not on the back of the head but is near the right orbit, you must also assume (1) that the slice on the lateral x-rays that vertically corresponds with the back-of-head fragment is metallic, and (2) that your slice is the partner image of the 6.5 mm object. Yet, not a single expert has identified that slice as a bullet fragment, and your theory would leave the back-of-head fragment with no conceivable partner image on the lateral x-rays, a physical impossibility.

Fitzpatrick would not engage with Mantik over the OD measurements because he knew he would not be able to explain them away. Dr. Mantik is a world-class radiation oncologist and also a former professor of physics. His medical research has been published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Dr. Chesser did his own OD measuremens and confirmed Mantik's OD measurements. Drs. Haas, Henkelmann, Aguilar, and Wecht have endorsed Mantik's OD measurements.

Finally, I notice you avoided the cold, hard fact that if the brain photos are authentic, no bullet could have entered at the EOP site. This is lock bang, open and shut. 

 

Once again, you are grossly mis-informed. Read the website. You'll learn a heckuva lot more than you will by repeating long-disproven talking points. 

Here's a sample: 

I got mad on behalf of Dr. James J. Humes. Not only did he accurately depict the position of the large fragment in Warren Commission Exhibit CE 388, but he was right about its angle within the skull. And yet, even so, everyone believed the Clark Panel when they said the largest fragment on the x-rays was on the back of Kennedy’s skull. Why did they believe them? (Heck, for that matter, why did I for the longest time believe them?) Were we pre-disposed to disbelieve Humes because of his military background? Or was it his Warren Commission experience in particular that destroyed his credibility? Were the autopsy doctors the boy who cried wolf and the Clark Panel a wolf in sheep’s clothing? I re-read every reference to the large fragment I could find. The autopsy report written by Dr. Humes states: “There is edema and ecchymosis (bruising) diffusely over the right supra-orbital ridge (the eye socket) with abnormal mobility of the underlying bone” and that “roentgenograms (x-rays) of the skull reveal multiple minute fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge… From the surface of the disrupted cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.” While these statements supported that the fragments were behind the eye, one might stretch them to support they were just behind the forehead as well. Perhaps then Humes' testimony was more specific. Indeed, it was. Before the Warren Commission, Humes testified that while studying the x-rays taken at the beginning of the autopsy, he'd observed "A rather sizable fragment visible by x-ray just above the right eye" and that the majority of the fragments visible on the x-rays were "dustlike...with the exception of this one I previously mentioned which was seen to be above and very slightly behind the right orbit." After being shown Exhibit 388, on which this fragment was depicted behind the right eye, he then explained: “We attempted to examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.” Arlen Specter then asked: "When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President’s eye?” To which Humes replied: “Yes, sir. Above and somewhat behind the President’s eye." He then continued: "We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.”

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

When asked about the large fragment by the ARRB, Humes similarly relented: “I don’t remember retrieving anything of that size.” Later, however, when asked if he could spot any fragments on the lateral x-ray, he said: “Well, you see, there’s nothing in this projection that appears to be of the size of the one that appeared to be above and behind the right eye on the other one.” Wait. He claimed not to recognize the fragment, and yet he still knew exactly where it was—and it just so happened to be in the exact location where he’d found a fragment during the autopsy??? From this strange slip-up, 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 28, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

@Pat Speer  To accept your position, we'd have to believe the following:

-- Humes mismeasured the largest fragment, even though the HSCA FPP confirmed that it's 7x2 mm. (Dr. Mantik has likewise confirmed that it's 7x2 mm.)

-- Even though Humes insisted that the 7x2 mm fragment was the largest fragment he removed, he actually removed the slice on the lateral x-rays that you've identified as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. 

-- Humes was wrong when he told the ARRB that the fragments he removed were "considerably smaller" than the 6.5 mm object.

-- Boswell was wrong when he told the ARRB that he was "sure" they did not remove a fragment as large as the 6.5 mm object.

-- Your slice on the lateral x-rays is the partner image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, even though not a single medical expert has even identified that slice as a metal fragment, much less as the companion image of the 6.5 mm object.

-- The 6.5 mm object is near the right orbit, not in the back of the head, even though the vast majority of medical experts who've examined the skull x-rays have placed the object on the outer table in the back of the skull.

-- The two back-of-head fragments were deposited by an FMJ bullet as it entered the skull, even though forensic science knows of no case where FMJ bullets have behaved in this manner, and even though both fragments are at least 3 inches above the rear head entry wound.

-- The fragments in CE 843 are the 6.5 mm object, even though they obviously could not have formed such an object.

-- CE 843 is not evidence of fraud, even though the CE 843 fragments are supposed to be the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments that Humes removed during the autopsy.

-- The 6.5 mm object has been mismeasured and is not actually 6.5 mm in diameter, even though every expert who has measured it has said it's 6.5 mm in diameter. 

-- The OD measurements are wrong or fraudulent. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser either committed the same errors in their OD measurements or Dr. Chesser falsified his measurements to agree with Dr. Mantik's measurements. 

-- The 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray is not evidence of alteration but is merely a stray disk that was accidentally x-rayed when the AP x-ray was taken, even though you and other advocates of this desperate theory can't identify a disk that was 6.5 mm in diameter, can't explain how a neat semi-circular notch would have been chipped from the disk, and can't explain why the disk/object does not appear in any of the other skull x-rays. 

Edited October 2, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

@Pat Speer  To accept your position, we'd have to believe the following:

-- Humes mismeasured the largest fragment, even though the HSCA FPP confirmed that it's 7x2 mm. (Dr. Mantik has likewise confirmed that it's 7x2 mm.)

-- Even though Humes insisted that the 7x2 mm fragment was the largest fragment he removed, he actually removed the slice on the lateral x-rays that you've identified as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. 

-- Humes was wrong when he told the ARRB that the fragments he removed were "considerably smaller" than the 6.5 mm object.

-- Boswell was wrong when he told the ARRB that he was "sure" they did not remove a fragment as large as the 6.5 mm object.

-- Your slice on the lateral x-rays is the partner image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, even though not a single medical expert has even identified that slice as a metal fragment, much less as the companion image of the 6.5 mm object.

-- The 6.5 mm object is near the right orbit, not in the back of the head, even though the vast majority of medical experts who've examined the skull x-rays have placed the object on the outer table in the back of the skull.

-- The two back-of-head fragments were deposited by an FMJ bullet as it entered the skull, even though forensic science knows of no case where FMJ bullets have behaved in this manner, and even though both fragments are at least 3 inches above the rear head entry wound.

-- The fragments in CE 843 are the 6.5 mm object, even though they obviously could not have formed such an object.

-- CE 843 is not evidence of fraud, even though the CE 843 fragments are supposed to be the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments that Humes removed during the autopsy.

-- The 6.5 mm object has been mismeasured and is not actually 6.5 mm in diameter, even though every expert who has measured it has said it's 6.5 mm in diameter. 

-- The OD measurements are wrong or fraudulent. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser either committed the same errors in their OD measurements or Dr. Chesser falsified his measurements to agree with Dr. Mantik's measurements. 

-- The 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray is not evidence of alteration but is merely a stray disk that was accidentally x-rayed when the AP x-ray was taken, even though you and other advocates of this desperate theory can't identify a disk that was 6.5 mm in diameter, can't explain how a neat semi-circular notch would have been chipped from the disk, and can't explain why the disk/object does not appear in any of the other skull x-rays. 

I broke my arm so can't type much, but you really need to stop swallowing whatever's been written by your heroes. Get a textbook on forensic radiology. Read. Get a textbook on the history of radiology. Read. Get an instruction manual for the portable x-ray machine used or one of a similar machine. Read. 

If you do you will realize that the front of JFK's head on the AP x-ray is magnified to a much greater extent than most doctors are used to seeing. If you do you will realize that forensic radiologists do not give precise measurements or caliber for missiles and fragments and only give approximates after determining the distances involved. 

All of this is covered on my website, which apparently has cooties. So blow it off and read some freakin' textbooks. Anything but continue repeating this easily refuted garbage. I mean, you're still pretending the forehead fragment is the fragment removed at autopsy. It doesn't look like the fragment photographed by the FBI and viewable in the archives. And it's inches away from where the doctors claimed they'd found a fragment. So it's elementary--freakin' obvious--it isn't the fragment. But you refuse to see this for obvious reasons.

[Michael Crane]

We interupt this broadcast to bring you the following report....

No bullets or fragments were discovered on the x-rays at autopsy.

The x-rays were taken at a minimum of 3 times.

However...James Jenkins says that bullet & bone fragments were brought into the morgue later in the evening ( a total of less than 2 whole bullets)  < ----- Dennis David.

This concludes this test of the Emergency Broadcast System.

[Michael Griffith]

On 9/28/2023 at 2:44 PM, Pat Speer said:

Once again, you are grossly mis-informed. Read the website. You'll learn a heckuva lot more than you will by repeating long-disproven talking points. 

Here's a sample: 

I got mad on behalf of Dr. James J. Humes. Not only did he accurately depict the position of the large fragment in Warren Commission Exhibit CE 388, but he was right about its angle within the skull. And yet, even so, everyone believed the Clark Panel when they said the largest fragment on the x-rays was on the back of Kennedy’s skull. Why did they believe them? (Heck, for that matter, why did I for the longest time believe them?) Were we pre-disposed to disbelieve Humes because of his military background? Or was it his Warren Commission experience in particular that destroyed his credibility? Were the autopsy doctors the boy who cried wolf and the Clark Panel a wolf in sheep’s clothing? I re-read every reference to the large fragment I could find. The autopsy report written by Dr. Humes states: “There is edema and ecchymosis (bruising) diffusely over the right supra-orbital ridge (the eye socket) with abnormal mobility of the underlying bone” and that “roentgenograms (x-rays) of the skull reveal multiple minute fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge… From the surface of the disrupted cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.” While these statements supported that the fragments were behind the eye, one might stretch them to support they were just behind the forehead as well. Perhaps then Humes' testimony was more specific. Indeed, it was. Before the Warren Commission, Humes testified that while studying the x-rays taken at the beginning of the autopsy, he'd observed "A rather sizable fragment visible by x-ray just above the right eye" and that the majority of the fragments visible on the x-rays were "dustlike...with the exception of this one I previously mentioned which was seen to be above and very slightly behind the right orbit." After being shown Exhibit 388, on which this fragment was depicted behind the right eye, he then explained: “We attempted to examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.” Arlen Specter then asked: "When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President’s eye?” To which Humes replied: “Yes, sir. Above and somewhat behind the President’s eye." He then continued: "We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.”

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

When asked about the large fragment by the ARRB, Humes similarly relented: “I don’t remember retrieving anything of that size.” Later, however, when asked if he could spot any fragments on the lateral x-ray, he said: “Well, you see, there’s nothing in this projection that appears to be of the size of the one that appeared to be above and behind the right eye on the other one.” Wait. He claimed not to recognize the fragment, and yet he still knew exactly where it was—and it just so happened to be in the exact location where he’d found a fragment during the autopsy??? From this strange slip-up, 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.

Sigh. .  .  Just a huge sigh. . . .

The "men most intimately involved with the skull x-rays" were describing the 7x2 mm fragment, the same fragment that Humes clearly, plainly, undeniably said was the largest fragment that he removed. You keep presenting all these quotes as if they prove your ridiculous theory. 

Again, yes, the largest fragment at the autopsy was behind and above the right eye/orbit. You keep making this point as if you're proving your theory, but you keep ignoring the fact (1) that virtually every expert who's examined the x-rays has said the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head, not near the right eye/orbit, (2) that the 7x2 mm fragment is above and behind the right eye/orbit on the x-rays, (3) that OD measurements prove that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic, (4) that the slice that you claim is the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays has not been identified by a single expert as a bullet fragment, much less as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray or as the fragment that Humes removed, and (5) that Humes undeniably, self-evidently specified that the 7x2 mm fragment was the largest fragment that he removed, and the HSCA experts confirmed the 7x2 mm measurement.

Yes, Humes later waffled on the 6.5 mm object in his ARRB testimony, but before he realized the implications, he insisted that the fragments that he removed were "considerably smaller" than the 6.5 mm object. Boswell said the same thing. And neither man said that he saw the object during the autopsy--they merely said that just because they did not remember seeing it did not mean it was not there.

Custer did NOT tell the ARRB that he saw 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy. Even David Von Pein admits that Custer did not clearly say this and may have been referring to the cluster of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region. In Custer's many hours of discussions with Dr. Mantik about the autopsy and the autopsy x-rays, not once did he claim that he'd seen the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy.

The only person who told the ARRB that he saw the 6.5 mm object on the x-rays during the autopsy was Ed Reed. I've already discussed the problems with his testimony.

Humes made it as clear as language can make something that the largest fragment that he removed was the 7x2 mm fragment seen on the skull x-rays. You simply refuse to admit this but offer the dubious, absurd explanation that Humes actually removed the slice that you've identified on the lateral x-rays and somehow confused that slice with the 7x2 mm fragment. Again, not a single expert has identified that slice as a bullet fragment, and the vast majority of experts have placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the skull. 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

A man says he saw NBA star LeBron James at the mall by his hot dog stand. He has a photo taken from  50 yards away that he says shows it. One of his co-workers doubts him. And spots a black man in the crowd 20 yards away and says that's him there and he's not by the hot dog stand. There's a photo of this man leaving the mall, however, and it's not LeBron James.

Decades later I discover this weird situation, and look in the photo by the hot dog stand, and see what appears to be a a black man looking in the other direction while leaning forward. I say well, that could be him right there.

Mantik and his minions: it couldn't be. The man must have been lying as part of some giant conspiracy.   

Edited January 21 by Pat Speer