This is not a bullet track

[Eddy Bainbridge]

The following analysis is based on facts deduced in the presentation made by Dr Michael Chesser in his presentation available here:

Reviewing the Autopsy X-Rays – The Future of Freedom Foundation (fff.org)

 

His presentation focusses on the Lateral (side to side) skull Xray and I am focussing on the fragments seen on the Xray near the top of the skull.

1.      There is no dispute that these are metallic fragments due to the way they are highlighted as bright particles on the Xray.

2.      At 33:10 of the presentation Dr Chesser confirms he saw a huge number more ‘dustlike’ particles on the Xray’s (at NARA) towards the front of the skull.

3.      The Ramsay Clark Panel and the HSCA portray the particle pattern as evidence of a bullet track from back to front (The Warren Commission appears to simply lie about the location of the fragments on the Xray). The location of this alleged track is part of the concern debated at the HSCA on bullet entrance location. The debate resulted in their conclusion that the rear head wound entered far higher than where the Warren Commission had determined.

4.       Some of the clearly visible fragments form lines of fragments stretching at different angles across the Xray. What explains the ‘lining up’ of fragments? The answer leads to a clue about the bullet entry point.

 

At 37:10 in the presentation Dr Chesser shows a slide titled ‘OPS 9mm hollow point frangible gel ballistics’ I can make no conclusion as to the type of bullet used in the assassination, but I want to use this slide to make another point:

1.      Large bullet fragments have more momentum and will travel further in a medium (gel/brain) than smaller particles (See presentation at 36:10).

2.      A large/ high momentum fragment creates its own pathway through the medium.

3.      Any fragment that is following behind such a fragment, on a similar path, now has a pathway to follow, which is less resistant to travel. Therefore, smaller fragments travel along these pathways farther than they would in the basic media. The result is the straight lines on the Xray (See also the presentation slide at 37:10).

Dr Chesser confirms there are a mass of dustlike (low momentum) particles at the rear of the skull. Further to the top rear of the skull there are lines of larger (high momentum) particles, some of which have formed lines ‘followed’ by lower momentum particles. If this constitutes a bullet disintegrating front to back, why can’t we see more particles?

This can only be partly answered with any confidence. Dr Chesser states there are tiny particles in what appears to be black areas of the Xray. The particles require a medium (brain) to support them, and we can be confident that a large proportion of Kennedy’s brain was missing due to his injuries (No photo is available but a sketch of the brain was made showing massive damage to one side, and many witnesses confirm massive brain loss). Looking at the Gel ballistics diagram it does not appear to be assured that a bullet passing through a brain would remove sufficient matter and bullet particles to prevent them appearing in the Xray. The best I can offer is three possibilities :

1        This was one of multiple impacts to the head. Subsequent bullets removing evidence of previous bullets.

2        The bullet ‘flushed out’ the other particles through a large exit.

3.      The Xray has been altered to remove particulate evidence.

 

Conclusions

The distribution of the metal particles reviewed is consistent with a frontal shot.

The purported bullet track is a grouping of the tracks of multiple large particles, that were followed by lower momentum particles to form straight particle lines. These lines are suggestive of where the bullet entry was, but no firmer conclusion is possible.

[Michael Crane]

Nice.

Thank you.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Commenting on my own post will perhaps enhance its appeal!

There is a common fallacy with analysis of the medical evidence

'the medical evidence has been subject to fakery and poor chains of custody, so it is not worth analysing'

The fallacy within this argument is that; if the evidence shows conspiracy, assuming its genuine, then there was a conspiracy! Its worth analysing the evidence at face value, and the lateral X-ray is a great example of this.

'Prayer man' has a problem, the lateral x-ray does not

 To move the Prayer man argument forward really requires access to films held unlawfully (Contravening the Records Act) by third parties. The lateral X-ray (or at least a good copy) is held at NARA. Dr Chesser has described in incomplete detail what the X-ray shows. We can surely all be allowed to see an enhanced version of this X-ray, which will show ; a fuller pattern of metallic particles, better detail of bones and better detail of where metal may be embedded in bone.

[Michael Crane]

Well it's new.I mean it's new to me & that is why I'm so thankful.