CE 843: Proof of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy Evidence

[Michael Griffith]

CE 843 is proof of fraud in the JFK autopsy evidence. CE 843 consists of three fragments that were supposedly removed from JFK's skull during the autopsy. However, these fragments look nothing like the fragments that Dr. James Humes said he removed from the skull and that appear on the autopsy skull x-rays. The 7x2 mm fragment is plainly visible on the AP x-ray, and it looks nothing like any of the fragments seen in CE 843. Moreover, Humes said he only removed two fragments, one 7x2 mm and the other 3x1 mm, not three.

For those few researchers who still believe that the largest fragment that Humes removed was the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray, CE 843 is equally problematic. The 6.5 mm object is perfectly round except for a neatly cut semi-circular notch on the bottom-right side (viewer's right). None of the three fragments in CE 843 looks like the 6.5 mm object, and no combination of those fragments could have formed the 6.5 mm object. The largest CE 843 fragment is roundish in its overall shape but it is not perfectly round; it has no semi-circular notch in it; and it has a virtually straight edge on the top-left side (viewer's left) that constitutes the fragment's longest side. 

Of course, we have known for years from multiple sets of OD measurements that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but was superimposed over the image of a small fragment in the outer table in the back of the head, and even Dr. Larry Sturdivan has acknowledged that FMJ bullets will not deposit fragments on the outer table of a skull when they strike the skull. 

I had forgotten about the serious problems with CE 843 until someone inadvertently reminded me of them in an exchange about the 6.5 mm object yesterday. My memory refreshed, I also recalled that Dr. David Mantik had discussed this issue in some of his writings. 

CE 843 is also HSCA JFK Exhibit F-258. 

In his essay "The JFK Autopsy Materials" (LINK), Dr. Mantik provides images of CE 843 and the AP skull x-ray, and he says the following about the problems posed by the exhibit:

          This is one of the most shocking contradictions in the entire case. The shape of the larger piece of metal is nothing like the supposedly identical piece seen on the X-rays. No measurements taken on this piece can explain its bizarre transformation in shape. Most likely, it is not the piece taken from the skull. Its origin is unknown.

          John Hunt has much better quality images, obtained from NARA. Incidentally, I saw only two, not three, fragments at NARA. The largest, however, bears no resemblance to the corresponding image on the X-rays. The larger piece shown here is pancake shaped and was 107 mg. On the other hand, the X-rays show a club shaped object on both X-ray views (see Figures 2 and 6 above). The studies done by the FBI on this object spectrographic analysis and neutron activation analysis required only a tiny amount at most, about 1 mg, according to one of the FBI experts. (p. 15)

Edited September 27, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

CE 843 is proof of fraud in the JFK autopsy evidence. CE 843 consists of three fragments that were supposedly removed from JFK's skull during the autopsy. However, these fragments look nothing like the fragments that Dr. James Humes said he removed from the skull and that appear on the autopsy skull x-rays. The 7x2 mm fragment is plainly visible on the AP x-ray, and it looks nothing like any of the fragments seen in CE 843. Moreover, Humes said he only removed two fragments, one 7x2 mm and the other 3x1 mm, not three.

For those few researchers who still believe that the largest fragment that Humes removed was the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray, CE 843 is equally problematic. The 6.5 mm object is perfectly round except for a neatly cut semi-circular notch on the bottom-right side (viewer's right). None of the three fragments in CE 843 looks like the 6.5 mm object, and no combination of those fragments could have formed the 6.5 mm object. The largest CE 843 fragment is roundish in its overall shape but it is not perfectly round; it has no semi-circular notch in it; and it has a virtually straight edge on the top-left side (viewer's left) that constitutes the fragment's longest side. 

Of course, we have known for years from multiple sets of OD measurements that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but was superimposed over the image of a small fragment in the outer table in the back of the head, and even Dr. Larry Sturdivan has acknowledged that FMJ bullets will not deposit fragments on the outer table of a skull when they strike the skull. 

I had forgotten about the serious problems with CE 843 until someone inadvertently reminded me of them in an exchange about the 6.5 mm object yesterday. My memory refreshed, I also recalled that Dr. David Mantik had discussed this issue in some of his writings. 

CE 843 is also HSCA JFK Exhibit F-258. 

In his essay "The JFK Autopsy Materials" (LINK), Dr. Mantik provides images of CE 843 and the AP skull x-ray, and he says the following about the problems posed by the exhibit:

          This is one of the most shocking contradictions in the entire case. The shape of the larger piece of metal is nothing like the supposedly identical piece seen on the X-rays. No measurements taken on this piece can explain its bizarre transformation in shape. Most likely, it is not the piece taken from the skull. Its origin is unknown.

          John Hunt has much better quality images, obtained from NARA. Incidentally, I saw only two, not three, fragments at NARA. The largest, however, bears no resemblance to the corresponding image on the X-rays. The larger piece shown here is pancake shaped and was 107 mg. On the other hand, the X-rays show a club shaped object on both X-ray views (see Figures 2 and 6 above). The studies done by the FBI on this object spectrographic analysis and neutron activation analysis required only a tiny amount at most, about 1 mg, according to one of the FBI experts. (p. 15)

What the heck? We have already established that much of this post is nonsense. The "corresponding" fragment Mantik claims was recovered at autopsy was actually a couple of inches away from the fragment recovered at autopsy (CE 843). That's why they don't look alike. They'r not the same fragment. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What the heck? We have already established that much of this post is nonsense. The "corresponding" fragment Mantik claims was recovered at autopsy was actually a couple of inches away from the fragment recovered at autopsy (CE 843). That's why they don't look alike. They'r not the same fragment. 

Oh my goodness. Your response is the nonsense here. You are totally--and I mean totally--misrepresenting Mantik's argument. Your theory is downright bizarre and simply ignores what Humes said, what the autopsy x-rays show, and what the OD measurements prove. 

CE 843 is supposed to be the two fragments that Humes said he removed. He said they were 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm. He said the largest fragment he removed was the 7x2 mm fragment. The fragments in CE 843 look nothing like the fragments that Humes described, and the largest fragment in CE 843 looks nothing like the 7x2 mm fragment that we see on the AP x-ray and that Humes specifically, clearly said he removed.

Furthermore, the CE 843 fragments could not have formed the 6.5 mm object, an object that is perfectly round except for a neatly cut semi-circular notch on the bottom-right side. I can't imagine how you can look at those fragments and think they could form such an object. 

The 6.5 mm object could not have been the largest fragment that Humes removed--it looks nothing like a 7x2 mm fragment and it is not near the right orbit but is in the back of the head. Plus, not a single expert has agreed with your theory that the slice on the lateral x-rays is a bullet fragment, much less that it is the lateral partner image for the 6.5 mm object. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

So I guess no WC apologists want to venture to explain the problems posed CE 843?

CE 843 is supposed to be the two fragments that Humes said he removed from the skull during the autopsy. He said they were 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm. He said the largest fragment he removed was the 7x2 mm fragment. However, the three fragments in CE 843 look nothing like the fragments that Humes described; moreover, the largest fragment in CE 843 looks nothing like the 7x2 mm fragment that we see on the AP x-ray and that Humes said he removed.

Obviously, the three CE 843 fragments could not have formed the 6.5 mm object, i.e., an object that is perfectly round except for a neatly cut semi-circular notch on the bottom-right side. Regardless of the fragments' thickness, there is no way they could have formed such an object.  

What happened to the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments that Humes removed, handled, and measured? Where did the CE 843 fragments come from?

Edited October 10, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

The fragment in the FBI photograph discovered by Hunt is almost certainly the fragment in the archives today. It was cut up for testing. But the fragment as seen today was part of the original. 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The fragment in the FBI photograph discovered by Hunt is almost certainly the fragment in the archives today. It was cut up for testing. But the fragment as seen today was part of the original. 

This explains nothing. Only a miniscule amount of substance was removed for testing and would not have altered the appearance of the three fragments in CE 843. Those fragments look nothing like the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments that Humes removed, handled, and measured. No matter how thick you want to assume they were, there's no way that the two fragments Humes described could be the CE 843 fragments.

In addition, the CE 843 fragments manifestly could not have formed a perfectly round object 6.5 mm in diameter and with a neat semi-circular notch. 

[Michael Crane]

None of the X-rays & pictures match.Most of this medical evidence is a train wreck.

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

None of the X-rays & pictures match.Most of this medical evidence is a train wreck.

 

 

 

Except it isn't.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

This explains nothing. Only a miniscule amount of substance was removed for testing and would not have altered the appearance of the three fragments in CE 843. Those fragments look nothing like the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments that Humes removed, handled, and measured. No matter how thick you want to assume they were, there's no way that the two fragments Humes described could be the CE 843 fragments.

In addition, the CE 843 fragments manifestly could not have formed a perfectly round object 6.5 mm in diameter and with a neat semi-circular notch. 

You really need to stop repeating Mantik's nonsense. 

The Fragment Fragment

Now, to be clear, on this particular point I concur with Dr. Mantik. He was apparently the first to notice it, he deserves credit for it, and he is absolutely correct--CE 843, the fragment Humes claimed he'd removed from behind Kennedy's eye, bears no resemblance to the club-shaped fragment so many assume he'd recovered from the forehead. In his essay 20 Conclusions After Nine Visits, Mantik writes that this is “One of the most shocking contradictions in the entire case.The shape of the larger piece of metal is nothing like the supposedly identical piece seen on the x-rays. No measurements taken on this piece can explain its bizarre transformation in shape. Most likely, it is not the piece taken from the skull…I saw only two, not three, at NARA. The largest, however, bears no resemblance to the corresponding image on the x-rays. The larger piece shown here is pancake shaped and was 107 mg. On the other hand the x-rays show a club shaped object—on both x-ray views. The studies done by the FBI on this object—spectrographic analysis and neutron activation analysis, required only a tiny amount at most, about 1 mg, according to one of the FBI experts…No one has offered an explanation for this flagrant discrepancy in shape of the largest piece. Sampling of the material is not an explanation. The possibility of substitution of fragments, an issue actually raised by the neutron activation expert (Dr. Vincent Guinn), remains wide open.” While it might seem strange my quoting Mantik on this issue, seeing as I've repeatedly demonstrated his lack of credibility, it's not half as strange as Mantik's insisting the 7 by 2 fragment removed at autopsy is the fragment on the forehead on the x-rays, and then turning around and admitting that the fragment in the archives is not the fragment one sees on the forehead. Hmmm... I mean, before insinuating some sort of switcheroo had been performed, shouldn't it have occurred to him that maybe, just maybe, the fragment removed at autopsy was not the fragment on the forehead, but was a fragment removed from somewhere else? Hmmm... Perhaps even from where the doctors claimed it had been removed, from behind the right eye? I don't know. Just a thought...

In any event, Mantik was correct to mention Guinn. Guinn testified before the HSCA that the fragment he tested, and the fragment subsequently seen by Mantik, was much smaller than the original fragment. While the fragment entered into evidence by the FBI was 107 mg, the one tested by Guinn 15 years later was only 41.9 mg. Robert Frazier, the FBI ballistics expert, described the fragments to the Warren Commission as follows: “These fragments consisted of two pieces of lead, one weighed 1.65 grains. (107 mg) The other weighed .15 grains. They were examined spectrographically so their present weight would be somewhat less since a very small amount would be needed for spectrographic analysis.”

HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey, however, followed up on Guinn’s comments and was able to find out that the size of the fragment used in the spectrographic tests was 32.045 mg, not as large as the original fragment, and not as large as the remaining fragment. This means the FBI broke up the fragment and destroyed or lost more than 60% of its mass! The reasons for this are not clear. Since these spectrographic tests were done before Frazier’s testimony, moreover, this means the photographs of CE 843 entered into evidence during his testimony showed only the remaining fragment. This, then, explains the discrepancy noted by Mantik.

But not really. When one reflects back on Mantik’s description of the fragment as “pancake-shaped,” and considers the size and shape of the fragment apparent in the forehead, it seems likely that the original-full-sized CE 843 looked nothing like the club-shaped fragment apparent in the forehead, and bore a much greater resemblance to the fragment found behind the eye on the x-rays.

Enter John Hunt. At the 2003 assassination conference put on by Dr. Cyril Wecht, researcher John Hunt shared photos he’d recently uncovered at the National Archives, including photos taken by the FBI of the bullet fragments prior to testing. These photos revealed a much larger fragment than the one entered into evidence by Frazier, with a rounded edge on the far side of the fragment, and a bite out of the near side. Intriguingly, the shadow of this bite approximates the shape of the bite visible on the x-ray fragment. Intriguingly, when one rotates the fragment in one's mind, so that the bite appears in the 5 o'clock position of the bite apparent on the x-ray, a small shelf of lead is lifted towards the top of the fragment when seen from the side, precisely where such a shelf is visible on the lateral x-ray. When one looks at the fragment in the photo, and compares it to the shape of the forehead fragment apparent on the A-P x-ray, moreover, it’s clear that the fragment in the photo is too thick to be the club-shaped fragment on the x-ray. As a result it seems almost certain that this fragment is the large fragment seen on the x-ray, and that it was found behind the right eye, exactly as claimed by Humes.

One finds support for this possibility, moreover, in the most surprising of places. In Larry Sturdivan's 2005 book The JFK Myths, he recounts his 2004 visit to the Archives to view the Kennedy autopsy materials. When discussing the supposed 6.5 mm fragment on the x-rays, which Sturdivan believes is an artifact, he offers "The disk was not as nearly circular as it appears on the view printed in the HSCA report. The edges are irregular, with the 'bite' being merely the largest indentation in the irregular, jagged margin."

So, what Sturdivan thought was an artifact and what others believed was a "slice," was actually irregular--and thereby more likely to have been lead as opposed to the rounded slice of copper and lead presumed by most theorists.

Not that Mantik will acknowledge this, of course. In his 2011 review of this website, Mantik asked himself "Has Speer explained the discrepancy between the 7 x 2 mm fragment (seen on the x-rays) and the quite different fragment in evidence at NARA?" He then responded by claiming that John Hunt has "discovered that only 2 mg was actually taken for spectroscopy. This is only a tiny fraction of the original mass (106.92 mg) of the larger fragment." Well, beyond his continuing to call the club-shaped fragment the 7 x 2 fragment, when this fragment was not in the location of the 7 x 2 fragment recovered at the autopsy, Mantik misled his readers on a crucial point. The fragment currently at NARA is not 104.92 mg, as suggested by Mantik, but 41.9 mg. The fragment used in the spectrographic tests was 32.05 mg. This suggests then that the 106.92 mg fragment recovered by the FBI was broken into pieces.

Well, think about it. The break-up of this fragment, regardless of the reason, offers us a reasonable explanation for why the bullet fragment in the most recent archives photos fails to match its appearance on the x-rays.

The bulk of the evidence, then, suggests that the 7 by 2 measurement given for the largest fragment recovered at the autopsy referred to an irregular fragment found behind the eye that appeared to be roughly 7 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick on the x-rays, and not a thin stake found in the middle of the forehead that was 7 mm long by 2 mm in width, as Dr. Mantik continues to claim.

This fragment was then cut into pieces. For testing. Which is why it no longer gives the appearance it once did. It all makes sense.

 

[Michael Griffith]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You really need to stop repeating Mantik's nonsense. 

The Fragment Fragment

Now, to be clear, on this particular point I concur with Dr. Mantik. He was apparently the first to notice it, he deserves credit for it, and he is absolutely correct--CE 843, the fragment Humes claimed he'd removed from behind Kennedy's eye, bears no resemblance to the club-shaped fragment so many assume he'd recovered from the forehead. In his essay 20 Conclusions After Nine Visits, Mantik writes that this is “One of the most shocking contradictions in the entire case.The shape of the larger piece of metal is nothing like the supposedly identical piece seen on the x-rays. No measurements taken on this piece can explain its bizarre transformation in shape. Most likely, it is not the piece taken from the skull…I saw only two, not three, at NARA. The largest, however, bears no resemblance to the corresponding image on the x-rays. The larger piece shown here is pancake shaped and was 107 mg. On the other hand the x-rays show a club shaped object—on both x-ray views. The studies done by the FBI on this object—spectrographic analysis and neutron activation analysis, required only a tiny amount at most, about 1 mg, according to one of the FBI experts…No one has offered an explanation for this flagrant discrepancy in shape of the largest piece. Sampling of the material is not an explanation. The possibility of substitution of fragments, an issue actually raised by the neutron activation expert (Dr. Vincent Guinn), remains wide open.” While it might seem strange my quoting Mantik on this issue, seeing as I've repeatedly demonstrated his lack of credibility, it's not half as strange as Mantik's insisting the 7 by 2 fragment removed at autopsy is the fragment on the forehead on the x-rays, and then turning around and admitting that the fragment in the archives is not the fragment one sees on the forehead. Hmmm... I mean, before insinuating some sort of switcheroo had been performed, shouldn't it have occurred to him that maybe, just maybe, the fragment removed at autopsy was not the fragment on the forehead, but was a fragment removed from somewhere else? Hmmm... Perhaps even from where the doctors claimed it had been removed, from behind the right eye? I don't know. Just a thought...

In any event, Mantik was correct to mention Guinn. Guinn testified before the HSCA that the fragment he tested, and the fragment subsequently seen by Mantik, was much smaller than the original fragment. While the fragment entered into evidence by the FBI was 107 mg, the one tested by Guinn 15 years later was only 41.9 mg. Robert Frazier, the FBI ballistics expert, described the fragments to the Warren Commission as follows: “These fragments consisted of two pieces of lead, one weighed 1.65 grains. (107 mg) The other weighed .15 grains. They were examined spectrographically so their present weight would be somewhat less since a very small amount would be needed for spectrographic analysis.”

HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey, however, followed up on Guinn’s comments and was able to find out that the size of the fragment used in the spectrographic tests was 32.045 mg, not as large as the original fragment, and not as large as the remaining fragment. This means the FBI broke up the fragment and destroyed or lost more than 60% of its mass! The reasons for this are not clear. Since these spectrographic tests were done before Frazier’s testimony, moreover, this means the photographs of CE 843 entered into evidence during his testimony showed only the remaining fragment. This, then, explains the discrepancy noted by Mantik.

But not really. When one reflects back on Mantik’s description of the fragment as “pancake-shaped,” and considers the size and shape of the fragment apparent in the forehead, it seems likely that the original-full-sized CE 843 looked nothing like the club-shaped fragment apparent in the forehead, and bore a much greater resemblance to the fragment found behind the eye on the x-rays.

Enter John Hunt. At the 2003 assassination conference put on by Dr. Cyril Wecht, researcher John Hunt shared photos he’d recently uncovered at the National Archives, including photos taken by the FBI of the bullet fragments prior to testing. These photos revealed a much larger fragment than the one entered into evidence by Frazier, with a rounded edge on the far side of the fragment, and a bite out of the near side. Intriguingly, the shadow of this bite approximates the shape of the bite visible on the x-ray fragment. Intriguingly, when one rotates the fragment in one's mind, so that the bite appears in the 5 o'clock position of the bite apparent on the x-ray, a small shelf of lead is lifted towards the top of the fragment when seen from the side, precisely where such a shelf is visible on the lateral x-ray. When one looks at the fragment in the photo, and compares it to the shape of the forehead fragment apparent on the A-P x-ray, moreover, it’s clear that the fragment in the photo is too thick to be the club-shaped fragment on the x-ray. As a result it seems almost certain that this fragment is the large fragment seen on the x-ray, and that it was found behind the right eye, exactly as claimed by Humes.

One finds support for this possibility, moreover, in the most surprising of places. In Larry Sturdivan's 2005 book The JFK Myths, he recounts his 2004 visit to the Archives to view the Kennedy autopsy materials. When discussing the supposed 6.5 mm fragment on the x-rays, which Sturdivan believes is an artifact, he offers "The disk was not as nearly circular as it appears on the view printed in the HSCA report. The edges are irregular, with the 'bite' being merely the largest indentation in the irregular, jagged margin."

So, what Sturdivan thought was an artifact and what others believed was a "slice," was actually irregular--and thereby more likely to have been lead as opposed to the rounded slice of copper and lead presumed by most theorists.

Not that Mantik will acknowledge this, of course. In his 2011 review of this website, Mantik asked himself "Has Speer explained the discrepancy between the 7 x 2 mm fragment (seen on the x-rays) and the quite different fragment in evidence at NARA?" He then responded by claiming that John Hunt has "discovered that only 2 mg was actually taken for spectroscopy. This is only a tiny fraction of the original mass (106.92 mg) of the larger fragment." Well, beyond his continuing to call the club-shaped fragment the 7 x 2 fragment, when this fragment was not in the location of the 7 x 2 fragment recovered at the autopsy, Mantik misled his readers on a crucial point. The fragment currently at NARA is not 104.92 mg, as suggested by Mantik, but 41.9 mg. The fragment used in the spectrographic tests was 32.05 mg. This suggests then that the 106.92 mg fragment recovered by the FBI was broken into pieces.

Well, think about it. The break-up of this fragment, regardless of the reason, offers us a reasonable explanation for why the bullet fragment in the most recent archives photos fails to match its appearance on the x-rays.

The bulk of the evidence, then, suggests that the 7 by 2 measurement given for the largest fragment recovered at the autopsy referred to an irregular fragment found behind the eye that appeared to be roughly 7 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick on the x-rays, and not a thin stake found in the middle of the forehead that was 7 mm long by 2 mm in width, as Dr. Mantik continues to claim.

This fragment was then cut into pieces. For testing. Which is why it no longer gives the appearance it once did. It all makes sense.

 

No, it does not all make sense. It's nonsense. I already answered most of these arguments in the thread on Landis's disclosure and the 6.5 mm object, yet you've repeated them without addressing the objections I raised to them.

First off, you keep ignoring the hard science of the OD measurements, the two independent sets of OD measurements done by Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser. Those measurements prove that the object is not metallic. This means it's not a bullet, and it's not a stray disk. It's a ghosted image that was placed over the image of a smaller genuine back-of-head fragment that measures 6.3 mm x 2.5 mm. Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate how the image was created. 

Anyone can look at the CE 843 fragments and see that they look nothing like the fragments that Humes handled and measured. There is no way those fragments were ever a 7x2 mm fragment and a 3x1 mm fragment. Not one of them looks like what someone would describe as "irregular," not to mention that they're not 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm. Nor could the CE 843 fragments have formed the 6.5 mm object, especially given the fact that the object is not metallic.

When you repeat your convoluted explanation, you really should inform readers that not a single medical expert has identified your slice object as a bullet fragment, and that your entire theory stands or falls on your assumption that the slice object was metallic. Your theory also requires that the slice object is the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, and that it is the fragment that Humes said was the largest fragment he removed, even though, as I've proved, Humes made it crystal clear that the largest fragment he removed, handled, and measured was 7x2 mm. 

But if the slice object is the partner image of the 6.5 mm object, i.e., if it's the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, then the small bullet fragment in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays has no partner image, a physical impossibility. You keep avoiding this problem. 

Your theory further requires us to believe that Humes saw the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray but somehow committed the incomprehensible blunder of mistaking it for an irregularly shaped 7x2 mm object, even though the 7x2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both clearly visible on the AP x-ray.

Your theory also requires us to believe that the 6.5 mm object is near the right orbit, but the vast majority of experts who've studied the x-rays place the object in the back of the head. 

You cite Sturdivan on the 6.5 mm object's appearance but ignore the fact that he puts the object in the back of the head, which destroys your convoluted theory. Speaking of the 6.5 mm object's appearance, here's what Dr. Fitzpatrick said about it:

          He opined that the 6.5 mm radio-opaque object in the A-P skull X-Ray looked "almost as if it had been machined off or cut off of a bullet. (ARRB meeting report, 2/29/96, p. 4)

Yes, indeed. The object certainly looks neatly circular on the AP x-ray, even in enlargements of the AP x-ray. But, if it really is not perfectly circular but is just generally circular, then that refutes your theory that the object is a stray disk that was lying on the table when the AP x-ray was taken. The stray-disk theory is implausible anyway, for the reasons I explained in the thread on Landis and the 6.5 mm object.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

9 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

No, it does not all make sense. It's nonsense. I already answered most of these arguments in the thread on Landis's disclosure and the 6.5 mm object, yet you've repeated them without addressing the objections I raised to them.

First off, you keep ignoring the hard science of the OD measurements, the two independent sets of OD measurements done by Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser. Those measurements prove that the object is not metallic. This means it's not a bullet, and it's not a stray disk. It's a ghosted image that was placed over the image of a smaller genuine back-of-head fragment that measures 6.3 mm x 2.5 mm. Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate how the image was created. 

Anyone can look at the CE 843 fragments and see that they look nothing like the fragments that Humes handled and measured. There is no way those fragments were ever a 7x2 mm fragment and a 3x1 mm fragment. Not one of them looks like what someone would describe as "irregular," not to mention that they're not 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm. Nor could the CE 843 fragments have formed the 6.5 mm object, especially given the fact that the object is not metallic.

When you repeat your convoluted explanation, you really should inform readers that not a single medical expert has identified your slice object as a bullet fragment, and that your entire theory stands or falls on your assumption that the slice object was metallic. Your theory also requires that the slice object is the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, and that it is the fragment that Humes said was the largest fragment he removed, even though, as I've proved, Humes made it crystal clear that the largest fragment he removed, handled, and measured was 7x2 mm. 

But if the slice object is the partner image of the 6.5 mm object, i.e., if it's the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object, then the small bullet fragment in the back of the head on the lateral x-rays has no partner image, a physical impossibility. You keep avoiding this problem. 

Your theory further requires us to believe that Humes saw the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray but somehow committed the incomprehensible blunder of mistaking it for an irregularly shaped 7x2 mm object, even though the 7x2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both clearly visible on the AP x-ray.

Your theory also requires us to believe that the 6.5 mm object is near the right orbit, but the vast majority of experts who've studied the x-rays place the object in the back of the head. 

You cite Sturdivan on the 6.5 mm object's appearance but ignore the fact that he puts the object in the back of the head, which destroys your convoluted theory. Speaking of the 6.5 mm object's appearance, here's what Dr. Fitzpatrick said about it:

          He opined that the 6.5 mm radio-opaque object in the A-P skull X-Ray looked "almost as if it had been machined off or cut off of a bullet. (ARRB meeting report, 2/29/96, p. 4)

Yes, indeed. The object certainly looks neatly circular on the AP x-ray, even in enlargements of the AP x-ray. But, if it really is not perfectly circular but is just generally circular, then that refutes your theory that the object is a stray disk that was lying on the table when the AP x-ray was taken. The stray-disk theory is implausible anyway, for the reasons I explained in the thread on Landis and the 6.5 mm object.

You're just flailing. It's embarrassing. Your arguments are pure nonsense. 

1. Sturdivan said he suspected the A-P fragment was an artifact--NOT real, and NOT on the back of the head.

2. I never said anything about a stray disc. This is a deliberate straw man argument designed to conceal that Mantik is simply out to lunch on a number of issues--in this case that the fragment in the archives should be the same size and shape as the fragment renamed at autopsy. He failed to do the homework. The original fragment was broken up for testing. 

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You're just flailing. It's embarrassing. Your arguments are pure nonsense. 

1. Sturdivan said he suspected the A-P fragment was an artifact--NOT real, and NOT on the back of the head.

2. I never said anything about a stray disc. This is a deliberate straw man argument designed to conceal that Mantik is simply out to lunch on a number of issues--in this case that the fragment in the archives should be the same size and shape as the fragment renamed at autopsy. He failed to do the homework. The original fragment was broken up for testing. 

I think you're the one who's flailing. Readers will notice that you keep ignoring many of my points.

As you surely know, Sturdivan says the 6.5 mm object is an artifact precisely because it has no partner image on the back of the skull in the lateral skull x-rays (The JFK Myths, p. 185). He notes that the partner image identified by the HSCA FPP on the lateral x-rays cannot be the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object because "it is not nearly light enough" (Ibid.) If the 6.5 mm object did not seem to be on the back of the head, this would be a pointless, invalid argument. This is why it is such a big deal that the 6.5 mm object has no partner image on the lateral x-rays. This is why this contradiction bothered and perplexed Dr. Fitzpatrick. I've pointed this out to you many times, but you keep ignoring it.

For weeks you kept claiming that Mantik does not place the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, until I proved that he does. What is disturbing about this is that Mantik himself refuted your claim in his response to your critique several years ago, yet you repeated the false claim until I proved that Mantik already refuted it.

So you really should stop repeating the falsehood that the 6.5 mm object does not appear to be on the back of the head when this is the very reason that the lack of a partner image on the lateral x-rays is such a huge problem and such a big deal. 

In double-checking, I realized that, as you said, you do not posit a stray disk to explain the 6.5 mm object, but you do posit a drop of acid (fixing solution), which is even more problematic. Leaving aside the question of where a drop of acid would have come from in the first place, since when do drops of acid include a well-defined notch that disrupts an otherwise nearly perfectly round shape? The 6.5 mm object has a notch missing on its bottom right side (viewer’s right), but the rest of it is virtually perfectly circular (it looks perfectly circular on the AP x-ray). The fatal problem with the theory is that if the 6.5 mm object were caused by an acid drop, the x-ray film's emulsion would be visibly altered at this site, but the emulsion is completely intact (Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 150).

So, yes, you are correct: You have not advanced the stray-disk theory. I stand corrected on that. Sturdivan has offered the theory as one of two explanations (the other being an acid drop), but you have not. However, this doesn't help your case any because the acid-drop theory is impossible. 

 

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I think you're the one who's flailing. Readers will notice that you keep ignoring many of my points.

As you surely know, Sturdivan says the 6.5 mm object is an artifact precisely because it has no partner image on the back of the skull in the lateral skull x-rays (The JFK Myths, p. 185). He notes that the partner image identified by the HSCA FPP on the lateral x-rays cannot be the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object because "it is not nearly light enough" (Ibid.) If the 6.5 mm object did not seem to be on the back of the head, this would be a pointless, invalid argument. This is why it is such a big deal that the 6.5 mm object has no partner image on the lateral x-rays. This is why this contradiction bothered and perplexed Dr. Fitzpatrick. I've pointed this out to you many times, but you keep ignoring it.

For weeks you kept claiming that Mantik does not place the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, until I proved that he does. What is disturbing about this is that Mantik himself refuted your claim in his response to your critique several years ago, yet you repeated the false claim until I proved that Mantik already refuted it.

So you really should stop repeating the falsehood that the 6.5 mm object does not appear to be on the back of the head when this is the very reason that the lack of a partner image on the lateral x-rays is such a huge problem and such a big deal. 

In double-checking, I realized that, as you said, you do not posit a stray disk to explain the 6.5 mm object, but you do posit a drop of acid (fixing solution), which is even more problematic. Leaving aside the question of where a drop of acid would have come from in the first place, since when do drops of acid include a well-defined notch that disrupts an otherwise nearly perfectly round shape? The 6.5 mm object has a notch missing on its bottom right side (viewer’s right), but the rest of it is virtually perfectly circular (it looks perfectly circular on the AP x-ray). The fatal problem with the theory is that if the 6.5 mm object were caused by an acid drop, the x-ray film's emulsion would be visibly altered at this site, but the emulsion is completely intact (Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 150).

So, yes, you are correct: You have not advanced the stray-disk theory. I stand corrected on that. Sturdivan has offered the theory as one of two explanations (the other being an acid drop), but you have not. However, this doesn't help your case any because the acid-drop theory is impossible. 

 

Are you out to set some kind of record?

1. You need to realize that images on x-rays are 2-d, and that it is impossible to tell from an A-P view where an object is on a lateral view. This is Radiology 101.  First chapter in a textbook. First day of class. So one can not say a fragment not visible on the back the head on a lateral x-ray is at the back of the head on an A-P X-ray. That's just bonkers. 2 + 2 = 5. What one CAN say is that a large fragment apparent high on the head on an A-P view has no obvious partner on the back of the head on a lateral view.  In such case, then, one SHOULD look to where the doctors said they found the largest fragment--BEHIND the right eye. I did just that, and guess what, there lies a fragment. And no, you can't rule out that the fragment in the FBI photo is the fragment on the x-rays. 

2.  When one reads radiology text books one finds that they address some of the frequent mistakes of x-ray techs and that one of these mistakes results in a white round spot on the finished image. Such spots are attributed to drops of fixer, not acid. So, no, the film is not burned. While I have never pushed this as an explanation for the shape on JFK's A-P x-ray, I mention it to expose one of the many flaws in Mantik's methodology. Here is a common mistake often discussed in textbooks, that addresses otherwise unexplained white round and oval shapes--that is not mentioned by Mantik in his papers, even in passing. This is not a coincidence, IMO. It seems obvious he doesn't want his readers to know that radiologists encounter white spots in every day life, and attribute such spots to a mistake in development. He wants people to believe he has made this great find, and that the white spot on JFK's A-P x-ray can ONLY be explained by some giant conspiracy. Please. 

 

 

 

[Michael Crane]

If the truth was known,if these fragments are legit,they are not even Carcano fragments.

I think the 3 sets of x-rays that were taken at autopsy would show us what we were honestly dealing with.

[Pat Speer]

43 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

If the truth was known,if these fragments are legit,they are not even Carcano fragments.

I think the 3 sets of x-rays that were taken at autopsy would show us what we were honestly dealing with.

One can not differentiate metal fragments as to caliber based on x-rays. It is true, however, that certain types of bullets are more likely to leave a trail of fragments than others, and that 6.5 FMJ bullets would not normally leave a trail of fragments between a small entrance and small exit. Yes, I wrote small exit. The HSCA FPP tried to claim it was a small exit that was subsequently blown out by the temporary cavity. But this is make-believe. 

The only rational explanation for the skull fracture pattern and bullet fragment pattern apparent on the X-rays is that the fatal bullet struck the supposed exit location at an angle, and created a large wound of both entrance and exit.