The JFK autopsy doctors revealed a back-of-head missing fragment.

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Here we have further proof that there was a large wound (hole) on the back of JFK's head, and therefore proof that the back-of-head autopsy photo is fraudulent.

All three autopsists, Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck, spoke of an entrance wound near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), which is the bump low on the back of a head. Apparently, only half of this entrance wound was in evidence at the autopsy because the other half was on a bone fragment that was brought in later.

By the time of the HSCA hearings, Dr. Boswell spoke freely of both the small entrance wound and the missing skull fragment adjacent to it. Apparently he thought it was no longer a secret. Dr. Finck was tighter-lipped. But he did slip up when testifying for the Warren Commission. Dr. Humes remained quiet his entire life, but did indirectly reveal the fragment in the autopsy report.

Following are the autopsists' comments I've found revealing the missing fragment. You'll see that their purpose in discussing it was to explain how they determined the small EOP wound was one of entrance, not exit. The hole exhibited "cratering" on the inside of the skull, which means it was a wound of entrance.

Boswell, HSCA:

[speaking of the entrance wound ]  "....because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here -- there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface."      (Source)

Note: Beveling on the interior surface indicates an entrance wound.

Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wounds [Dr Boswell] said the entry hole was only approximately half in evidence, the other half being part of the skull fragment which was brought in."      (Source: HSCA rec # 180-10093-10430. Agency file # 002071, p. 9)

Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wound, Dr. Boswell said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head"     (Source: HSCA rec # 180-10093-10430. Agency file # 002071, p. 6.)

Boswell to Dr. Aguilar, 1994:

“The defect – the wound of entrance was at the base of that defect and the shelving on the inner surface of the bone was half on the intact portion of the skull and half on that fragment that we received from Dallas and replaced.”     (Source)

Finck, WC:

"In the case we are discussing today, it was possible to have enough curvature and enough portion of the crater to identify positively the wound of entrance at the site of the bone."     (Source)

Note: We know that Finck is talking about a fragment here. Because with a fragment, it needs to be big enough to see the curvature. The curvature tells the pathologist which side of the fragment is interior and which side exterior. Knowing that, the side the crater is on indicates the side the bullet exited. Note also that Finck talks about the portion of the crater on the fragment. The remainder of the crater is on the skull edge where the fragment fits.

Finck Letter to Gen. Blumberg, 1965:

"I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosecutors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of entrance."     (Source)

Note: Again we see portion of a crater. The remainder of the crater is on the occipital fragment that fit there.

Finally, I need to remind you that what Boswell and Finck say (above) is consistent with the description of the EOP wound on the autopsy report. The word "fragment" isn't used in the report. But the fact that the hole (and beveling) is said to be on the margins (edge) of the skull implies that the hole is shared by two pieces of skull bone. Otherwise how could the hole be on the margins?

Autopsy Report (Humes):

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound [in the scalp] measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."     (Source)

 

[Pete Mellor]

Sandy, with the differing times reported for the commencement of JFK's autopsy, the multi arrivals of caskets, the two morgues, the ambiguities of film & x-ray evidence, the brain(s) ("it fell out in my hand"), the non requirement for a scull cap ("surgery to the head area"), the Pitzer film, the completed x-rays prior to the arrival of the grey navy ambulance with Jackie & RFK, the estimated 60 degree shallow back wound etc., etc.

The only thing I can take from the fraudulent goings on at Bethesda is that JFK's assassination was a military coup d'etat.

Edited March 29 by Pete Mellor
info

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Here we have further proof that there was a large wound (hole) on the back of JFK's head, and therefore proof that the back-of-head autopsy photo is fraudulent.

All three autopsists, Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck, spoke of an entrance wound near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), which is the bump low on the back of a head. Apparently, only half of this entrance wound was in evidence at the autopsy because the other half was on a bone fragment that was brought in later.

By the time of the HSCA hearings, Dr. Boswell spoke freely of both the small entrance wound and the missing skull fragment adjacent to it. Apparently he thought it was no longer a secret. Dr. Finck was tighter-lipped. But he did slip up when testifying for the Warren Commission. Dr. Humes remained quiet his entire life, but did indirectly reveal the fragment in the autopsy report.

Following are the autopsists' comments I've found revealing the missing fragment. You'll see that their purpose in discussing it was to explain how they determined the small EOP wound was one of entrance, not exit. The hole exhibited "cratering" on the inside of the skull, which means it was a wound of entrance.

Boswell, HSCA:

[speaking of the entrance wound ]  "....because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here -- there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface."

Note: Beveling on the interior surface indicates an entrance wound.

Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wounds [Dr Boswell] said the entry hole was only approximately half in evidence, the other half being part of the skull fragment which was brought in."

Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wound, Dr. Boswell said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head"

Boswell to Dr. Aguilar, 1994:

“The defect – the wound of entrance was at the base of that defect and the shelving on the inner surface of the bone was half on the intact portion of the skull and half on that fragment that we received from Dallas and replaced.”

Finck, WC:

"In the case we are discussing today, it was possible to have enough curvature and enough portion of the crater to identify positively the wound of entrance at the site of the bone."

Note: We know that Finck is talking about a fragment here. Because with a fragment, it needs to be big enough to see the curvature. The curvature tells the pathologist which side of the fragment is interior and which side exterior. Knowing that, the side the crater is on indicates the side the bullet exited. Note also that Finck talks about the portion of the crater on the fragment. The remainder of the crater is on the skull edge where the fragment fits.

Finck Letter to Gen. Blumberg, 1965:

"I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosecutors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of entrance."

Note: Again we see portion of a crater. The remainder of the crater is on the occipital fragment that fit there.

Finally, I need to remind you that what Boswell and Finck say (above) is consistent with the description of the EOP wound on the autopsy report. The word "fragment" isn't used in the report. But the fact that the hole (and beveling) is said to be on the margins (edge) of the skull implies that the hole is shared by two pieces of skull bone. Otherwise how could the hole be on the margins?

Autopsy Report (Humes):

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound [in the scalp] measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull." 

 

Without even getting into the details, Sandy, I am wondering what bone fragment you suggest contained the other half of the entrance defect is the one you claim was brought into the autopsy room later. It couldn't be the large triangular fragment, which was either frontal bone or parietal bone. No one thinks it was occipital bone. And besides it had an exit defect and not an entrance defect. And it can't be the Harper fragment, which was not discovered until the next day and was never shown the doctors. And that, oh yeah, was also purported to have an exit defect and not an entrance defect. So what bone are you talking about? 

[Sandy Larsen]

Note that I have now provided sources for all the the quotes in my OP.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Without even getting into the details, Sandy, I am wondering what bone fragment you suggest contained the other half of the entrance defect is the one you claim was brought into the autopsy room later. It couldn't be the large triangular fragment, which was either frontal bone or parietal bone. No one thinks it was occipital bone. And besides it had an exit defect and not an entrance defect. And it can't be the Harper fragment, which was not discovered until the next day and was never shown the doctors. And that, oh yeah, was also purported to have an exit defect and not an entrance defect. So what bone are you talking about? 

 

Pat,

As I said before, I firmly believe that the three fragments you speak of were a product of the clandestine surgery on Kennedy's head that took place before the official autopsy. The purpose of the surgery being to move the blowout wound to the top of the head, in order for it to be consistent with a lone gunman shooting from behind.

Regarding the occipital bone fragment spoken of by Dr. Boswell and Dr. Finck, I have a hypothesis that neatly fits all the witness statements together. The pertinent part of that hypothesis relating to your question is this: I believe that the fragment was brought to the autopsy too late for it to be re-inserted into the back of the head. (Which is why the embalmer had to use a rubber dam at the back of the head to contain embalming fluids.)

However, I do believe that the autopsists did study the fragment and could see that it included the other half of the EOP gunshot wound that earlier in the autopsy was missing. From the curvature of the fragment they could see that the beveling of the cratered hole was on the inside of the skull, thereby indicating it was an entrance wound.

It wasn't till 1994 that Boswell said that the fragment was re-inserted into the skull. I think he was mistaken.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Sandy, with the differing times reported for the commencement of JFK's autopsy, the multi arrivals of caskets, the two morgues, the ambiguities of film & x-ray evidence, the brain(s) ("it fell out in my hand"), the non requirement for a scull cap ("surgery to the head area"), the Pitzer film, the completed x-rays prior to the arrival of the grey navy ambulance with Jackie & RFK, the estimated 60 degree shallow back wound etc., etc.

The only thing I can take from the fraudulent goings on at Bethesda is that JFK's assassination was a military coup d'etat.

 

I think you are absolutely right, Pete.

I think that the JCS (the generals) conspired with the CIA to get the job done. The CIA planned the operation, including the part of the plan to overtly make it appear like the assassination was pulled off by a lone gunman from behind. At the same time, the plan covertly implicated Cuba and the Soviet Union in the assassination. Only the government would see the fake evidence against them. The Mexico City shenanigans were at the heart of that part of the plan.

The generals were hoping that President Johnson would approve of an invasion of Cuba, or even a first nuclear strike against the Soviet Union... something that they thought had to be done by the end of 1963 while America had the nuclear advantage.

President Johnson instead decided to cover up the (CIA-planted) evidence of Cuban/Soviet collusion, and instead make Oswald the lone villain. Which was possible because of the overt part of the CIA's plan to make Kennedy's body look like it was shot from behind only.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Pat,

As I said before, I firmly believe that the three fragments you speak of were a product of the clandestine surgery on Kennedy's head that took place before the official autopsy. The purpose of the surgery being to move the blowout wound to the top of the head, in order for it to be consistent with a lone gunman shooting from behind.

Regarding the occipital bone fragment spoken of by Dr. Boswell and Dr. Finck, I have a hypothesis that neatly fits all the witness statements together. The pertinent part of that hypothesis relating to your question is this: I believe that the fragment was brought to the autopsy too late for it to be re-inserted into the back of the head. (Which is why the embalmer had to use a rubber dam at the back of the head to contain embalming fluids.)

However, I do believe that the autopsists did study the fragment and could see that it included the other half of the EOP gunshot wound that earlier in the autopsy was missing. From the curvature of the fragment they could see that the beveling of the cratered hole was on the inside of the skull, thereby indicating it was an entrance wound.

It wasn't till 1994 that Boswell said that the fragment was re-inserted into the skull. I think he was mistaken.

 

So your theory holds that 

1) everyone claiming they saw an explosion of skull from the top, right side, or front of the skull was delusional, as the only large defect was on the far back of the head, prior to Humes performing surgery to the head area. Well, this is straight from Horne, but there's a problem with Horne's theory. A HUGE problem. Horne says Reed saw this "surgery" but Reed specified that he saw Humes cutting after the x-rays were taken--the x-rays which of course show frontal bone already missing. So, if you're echoing Horne, well, you're better off leaving Reed out of it. 

2) the Harper fragment was brought into the autopsy, and the three bone fragments actually brought into the autopsy were removed from Kennedy's skull by Dr. Humes and then paraded in so people believed they'd been brought into the autopsy. Well, this would mean there were two arrivals of bones at the autopsy--when people only remembered the one. So...not only do you have a pre-autopsy surgery recalled by no one, you have an arrival of bone at the autopsy recalled by no one.

3) Now, beyond having an unknown someone finding the Harper fragment, you have an unknown someone bringing it to Bethesda, and an unknown someone retuning it to Dealey Plaza, for...what was the reason again? 

Points 2 and 3 serve no purpose, IMO. They appear to be an attempt to avoid the obvious--that the large triangular fragment was believed to have exit beveling. Well, why not turn that around? Claim it was really entrance beveling for a shot from the front? As the only image of this fragment is an x-ray this would be hard to dispute beyond saying the autopsy doctors said it was exit beveling and not entrance beveling. 

But as long you're trying to piece this together, I have a question, which none of those claiming the back of the head was blown out have answered. And that is, where did the bullet blowing out the back of the head...exit? According to Mantik, the only beveling on the Harper fragment is entrance beveling. So, no, it didn't exit there. And according to Horne and Mantik, the beveled bone on the back of the head in the mystery photo was on the left side of the head, and represents the exit of a third shot that DID NOT blow out the back of the head. So where did the bullet blowing out the back of the head exit? And why is there no sign of it in the photos and x-rays? 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So your theory holds that 

1) everyone claiming they saw an explosion of skull from the top, right side, or front of the skull was delusional...

 

Almost nobody said that. Almost all the witnesses said they saw the gaping wound on the back of the head.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

2) the Harper fragment was brought into the autopsy, and the three bone fragments actually brought into the autopsy were removed from Kennedy's skull by Dr. Humes and then paraded in so people believed they'd been brought into the autopsy. Well, this would mean there were two arrivals of bones at the autopsy--when people only remembered the one. So...not only do you have a pre-autopsy surgery recalled by no one, you have an arrival of bone at the autopsy recalled by no one.

 

There were at least two entries of skull fragments.

FBI Agent Sibert wrote of 6.5 cm x 10 cm one in his report. (I don't think he reported anything regarding the three triangular fragments.) For the HSCA, he said that a large fragment came in that was found in the limousine. That's the one I've been talking about.

Sibert wrote this in a 9/1/98 letter to Vince Palamara:

"...In answering your two questions, the head wound, which was called the fatal wound by the pathologists, was located in the right rear portion of the head. A piece of the skull was missing which was found in the limousine and brought to the autopsy room during the latter stages of the autopsy."
 

There were numerous witnesses to this clay-pot looking fragment that came in late.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

3) Now, beyond having an unknown someone finding the Harper fragment, you have an unknown someone bringing it to Bethesda, and an unknown someone retuning it to Dealey Plaza, for...what was the reason again? 

 

These aren't "unknown" people. There is documentation on who saw and handled the fragment, and how it made its way to Bethesda. There is much more information regarding this fragment than there is on the three triangular fragments!

The fragment was taken to Bethesda to give to the autopsists... naturally. My hypothesis is that it was brought in too late to insert it back in the skull. (Which is why the mortician had to place a rubber dam back there.) So neither the autopsists nor the mortician had any use for it.

(Note:  I believe that the purpose of the Bethesda autopsy and clandestine pre-autopsy surgery was to make it appear that all shots came from the rear.) Continuing on with my hypothesis...

One of the coverup artists got this "brilliant" idea to return the fragment, or a piece of it, to the scene of the crime, Dealey Plaza. The idea was to plant it on the lawn in a location in FRONT of the limo. Somebody would discover it and, voila, they'd have a star witness saying that the fragment was found in front of, not behind, the limo. And therefore the shot came from behind.

Unfortunately for the coverup artist, the person who found the fragment had close ties to medical professionals. And they unanimously identified the fragment as coming from the occipital bone. Doh!

And the rest is history.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

But as long you're trying to piece this together, I have a question, which none of those claiming the back of the head was blown out have answered. And that is, where did the bullet blowing out the back of the head...exit? According to Mantik, the only beveling on the Harper fragment is entrance beveling. So, no, it didn't exit there. And according to Horne and Mantik, the beveled bone on the back of the head in the mystery photo was on the left side of the head, and represents the exit of a third shot that DID NOT blow out the back of the head. So where did the bullet blowing out the back of the head exit? And why is there no sign of it in the photos and x-rays? 

 

If you carefully observe the Z film around 313, you will see that Kennedy's head was hit twice within a couple frames. The first one forced his head forward, and the second one back and to the left. The first one obviously is what entered near the EOP.

It all fits together like a glove.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Almost nobody said that. Almost all the witnesses said they saw the gaping wound on the back of the head.

 

 

There were at least two entries of skull fragments.

FBI Agent Sibert wrote of 6.5 cm x 10 cm one in his report. (I don't think he reported anything regarding the three triangular fragments.) For the HSCA, he said that a large fragment came in that was found in the limousine. That's the one I've been talking about.

Sibert wrote this in a 9/1/98 letter to Vince Palamara:

"...In answering your two questions, the head wound, which was called the fatal wound by the pathologists, was located in the right rear portion of the head. A piece of the skull was missing which was found in the limousine and brought to the autopsy room during the latter stages of the autopsy."
 

There were numerous witnesses to this clay-pot looking fragment that came in late.

 

 

These aren't "unknown" people. There is documentation on who saw and handled the fragment, and how it made its way to Bethesda. There is much more information regarding this fragment than there is on the three triangular fragments!

The fragment was taken to Bethesda to give to the autopsists... naturally. My hypothesis is that it was brought in too late to insert it back in the skull. (Which is why the mortician had to place a rubber dam back there.) So neither the autopsists nor the mortician had any use for it.

(Note:  I believe that the purpose of the Bethesda autopsy and clandestine pre-autopsy surgery was to make it appear that all shots came from the rear.) Continuing on with my hypothesis...

One of the coverup artists got this "brilliant" idea to return the fragment, or a piece of it, to the scene of the crime, Dealey Plaza. The idea was to plant it on the lawn in a location in FRONT of the limo. Somebody would discover it and, voila, they'd have a star witness saying that the fragment was found in front of, not behind, the limo. And therefore the shot came from behind.

Unfortunately for the coverup artist, the person who found the fragment had close ties to medical professionals. And they unanimously identified the fragment as coming from the occipital bone. Doh!

And the rest is history.

 

 

If you carefully observe the Z film around 313, you will see that Kennedy's head was hit twice within a couple frames. The first one forced his head forward, and the second one back and to the left. The first one obviously is what entered near the EOP.

It all fits together like a glove.

 

 

We have questions. 

Why do you keep avoiding that the Dealey Plaza witnesses to the right of Kennedy such as the Newmans, Zapruder, Jackson, Sitzman, and Hudson, said they saw a large wound on the top right side of the head, while the witnesses to the left of Kennedy said they saw his hair rise up or an explosion on the far side of his head? And that essentially none of the credible witnesses said they saw a wound on the far back of his head, where you place it? 

What is the size of the large fragment on the x-rays? Many have studied it and have concluded that it is the 10 by 6.5 fragment described by the FBI, and has the beveling described by the autopsy doctors. Your claim it is not that fragment is a novel one. So what is the size of this fragment and what is the beveling on the fragment? 

If I am following you correctly then you are claiming the Harper fragment was the actual 10 x 6.5 cm fragment brought into the autopsy. Is that right?

And, if so, can you show us how a fragment that large would fit onto the back of the head? 

And explain how and why was it broken up and made smaller? 

And, additionally, who found the Harper Fragment on 11-22? Who flew it to Washington? And who returned it the next day? 

 

Edited March 30 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

31 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

We have questions. 

Why do you keep avoiding that the Dealey Plaza witnesses to the right of Kennedy such as the Newmans, Zapruder, Jackson, Sitzman, and Hudson, said they saw a large wound on the top right side of the head, while the witnesses to the left of Kennedy said they saw his hair rise up or an explosion on the far side of his head? And that essentially none of the credible witnesses said they saw a wound on the far back of his head, where you place it? 

 

I said that very few witnesses placed the gaping wound on the top of the head. And those are the least reliable witnesses... the ones not expecting to see anything, but then saw brain flying for just a moment.

The best witnesses are the Parkland Hospital professionals. And almost all of them said the wound was on the back of the head.

You have absolutely no credibility on this topic.

 

31 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

What is the size of the large fragment on the x-rays? Many have studied it and have concluded that it is the 10 by 6.5 fragment described by the FBI, and has the beveling described by the autopsy doctors. Your claim it is not that fragment is a novel one. So what is the size of this fragment and what is the beveling on the fragment?

 

10 x 6.5 is oblong in shape. The large triangular fragment is close to equilateral... in no way could it be described as 10 x 6.5.

The two fragments are not the same.

 

31 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

If I am following you correctly then you are claiming the Harper fragment was the actual 10 x 6.5 cm fragment brought into the autopsy. Is that right?

 

Nope. And I don't know where that fragment fit.

 

31 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

And, additionally, who found the Harper Fragment on 11-22? Who flew it to Washington? And who returned it the next day?

 

Sgt. Stavis Ellis said that he saw a secret service agent take the fragment from a child in Dealey Plaza and toss it in the back seat of the limo before it sped off.

Gerald Behn, Roy Kellerman, and Clint Hill all saw the fragment in the limo while in Dallas.

It was found in the back seat by Sam Kinney as the limo was being transported back to Washington. He's the one who said it reminded him of a clay pot.

Sam Kinney sent a message to Admiral Burkley informing him of the fragment and letting him know he was taking it directly to the White House.

FBI agents met Kinney at the White House garage and took possession of the fragment there. Presumably they are the ones who took it to the autopsy.

I don't know who returned the fragment to Dealey Plaza the following day because that is merely a part of my hypothesis... speculation designed to connect the known dots.

 

[Pat Speer]

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I said that very few witnesses placed the gaping wound on the top of the head. And those are the least reliable witnesses... the ones not expecting to see anything, but then saw brain flying for just a moment.

The best witnesses are the Parkland Hospital professionals. And almost all of them said the wound was on the back of the head.

You have absolutely no credibility on this topic.

 

 

10 x 6.5 is oblong in shape. The large triangular fragment is close to equilateral... in no way could it be described as 10 x 6.5.

The two fragments are not the same.

 

 

Nope. And I don't know where that fragment fit.

 

 

Sgt. Stavis Ellis said that he saw a secret service agent take the fragment from a child in Dealey Plaza and toss it in the back seat of the limo before it sped off.

Gerald Behn, Roy Kellerman, and Clint Hill all saw the fragment in the limo while in Dallas.

It was found in the back seat by Sam Kinney as the limo was being transported back to Washington. He's the one who said it reminded him of a clay pot.

Sam Kinney sent a message to Admiral Burkley informing him of the fragment and letting him know he was taking it directly to the White House.

FBI agents met Kinney at the White House garage and took possession of the fragment there. Presumably they are the ones who took it to the autopsy.

I don't know who returned the fragment to Dealey Plaza the following day because that is merely a part of my hypothesis... speculation designed to connect the known dots.

 

A couple of quick points...

The "triangular fragment" was nicknamed as such by Randy Robertson, based upon his viewing of the x-rays of this fragment. Your using this description to imply the "triangular fragment" is a different fragment from the 10 by 6.5 cm fragment is ill-founded, as the proportions of the fragment on the x-ray are that of the fragment described in the FBI's report. The fragments are one and the same. 

Stavis Ellis's statement to an interviewer about a child picking up a fragment and throwing it in the limo was his trying to recall what he'd heard, and not a precise recollection of his own. It was not sworn testimony, or even a statement he'd made in a personal account. It was blathering. And his tendency to blather about the assassination was mocked even by his own family, as Bill and Gayle Newman (Ellis's niece) laughed about his stories getting juicier and juicier in an interview with the Sixth Floor Museum. 

Should one accept Ellis' story, moreover, it would mean that every other eyewitness to the shooting lied, as none of them mentioned a long stop of the limo, a child picking up a bone fragment within seconds of the shooting, or even a Secret Service man's being in the Plaza. I mean, think about it. How would Ellis, should he have witnessed this supposed incident, from 50 years away or so, have known the man taking the fragment from the child was a Secret Service agent? 

This was clearly a story he'd pieced together, years after the shooting, that incorporated authentic elements such as a bone fragment being found by a young person, and someone identifying himself as a Secret Service agent in the aftermath of the shots. It was never intended to be written down as an authentic recollection of Ellis', as something he witnessed himself. I mean, he was interviewed by the HSCA and said all sorts of things, but nothing like this. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

I believe that the partial hole that the autopsy doctors had with the small (EOP) fragment was largely completed by the Harper fragment, which showed signs of an entry wound. Dr. Mantik’s reconstruction puts that entry right at the EOP.

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I believe that the partial hole that the autopsy doctors had with the small (EOP) fragment was largely completed by the Harper fragment, which showed signs of an entry wound. Dr. Mantik’s reconstruction puts that entry right at the EOP.

Yes, but what this thread ignores is Mantik and Chesser's analysis of two simultaneous frontal shots. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

If the “evidence " for “two” frontal shots is the Z film, then I don’t believe it. I give a witness account for the only frontal shot that I am aware of. For the second head shot, that the EOP entrance for the AR-15 bullet. The shot was also seen by witnesses as one causing a reddish mist or halo. This scenario is supported by the autopsy X-rays (even though they were altered), by the apparent bullet fragment trail, although the “enhanced” lateral X-ray is a composite made with the help of the “living” X-ray to make the face appear as if it was on the right rather than the left (where it was actually located). I don’t know of any witnesses to a third head shot. 

[Pat Speer]

13 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

If the “evidence " for “two” frontal shots is the Z film, then I don’t believe it. I give a witness account for the only frontal shot that I am aware of. For the second head shot, that the EOP entrance for the AR-15 bullet. The shot was also seen by witnesses as one causing a reddish mist or halo. This scenario is supported by the autopsy X-rays (even though they were altered), by the apparent bullet fragment trail, although the “enhanced” lateral X-ray is a composite made with the help of the “living” X-ray to make the face appear as if it was on the right rather than the left (where it was actually located). I don’t know of any witnesses to a third head shot. 

Well I think we can agree that the three headshot theory is questionable. I went back recently and watched a number of Mantik/Horne/Chesser presentations and was astounded by how weird and weak their arguments for three headshots were.

To simplify...

Shot #1: EOP entrance as described by the autopsy doctors and confirmed by the lead smear on the Harper fragment near the EOP when the fragment is placed in Mantik's orientation. No known exit for this bullet. No evidence this bullet was ever found. (Their theory is in trouble from the get-go. All credible experts on skull anatomy have concluded the Harper fragment is parietal bone and NOT occipital bone, and that's not even to mention that the beveling at the site of the lead smear Mantik claims to be an entrance is EXIT beveling and not entrance beveling.)

Shot #2: Entrance near the temple above the right ear. Blow-out exit on back of skull above EOP entrance that apparently left no exit beveling on Harper fragment or surrounding skull, or even a trail of fragments within the skull. (Now, this is what I mean by weird. There are actually two ways they could support an entrance in this location. One is to cite James Jenkins' recollection of an entrance defect in this location, and Two is to note there is beveling on the Harper fragment in this location when placed in Angel's orientation. But as they describe this wound in their presentations, they offer no support in the physical evidence for this proposed bullet's entrance... or its exit.)

Shot #3: Entrance high on right forehead. Exit on left side of back of skull. (Now this is a bullet trajectory connecting an entrance observed by no one at Parkland and Bethesda and an exit observed by no one at Parkland or Bethesda. So there's lot of serious stretching performed to shore this one up. The exit, they claim, can be deduced from the beveling on the back of the head in the mystery photo...when placed in Mantik's obviously incorrect orientation for the photo (I proved this was incorrect in my video series 15 years ago only to have Mantik respond by concealing the features used to establish a proper orientation from his audience.) As far as the entrance...They cite witnesses such as Tom Robinson--who said he saw, first, a small wound by the temple that was not a bullet's entrance, and, second, two or three small wounds on the cheek that were not a bullet entrance. And yet they turn around and claim his recollections of small wounds by the temple or cheek that were not bullet entrances as evidence for a bullet entrance high on the forehead. Now, that's bad enough, but the other witnesses they cite are even worse. They cite Joe O'Donnell's claim he was shown a photo of a bullet hole on the forehead in a photo when they know damn well that he was suffering from dementia and making all sorts of obviously false claims about the Kennedys when he said this AND that the photographer who'd supposedly shown him this photo was not even present at the autopsy, according to everyone present at the autopsy. AND they cite Dennis David's claim he was shown a similar photo by someone who everyone at the autopsy says was not even present at the autopsy.(Now, the thought occurs that there was a bootleg set of photos which made the rounds at Bethesda, and that O'Donnell and David were in fact shown these photos, and mis-remembered one of these photos--most likely the stare-of-death photo--as showing a bullet hole on the forehead. But the thought they were shown photos of the body--which no one at the autopsy recalled taking--showing a wound upon the body--which no one viewing the body recalled seeing--is quite a stretch.) In any event, Mantik has more recently added onto these negligible witnesses by claiming the Parkland doctors saying they saw some blood by the left temple (essentially Marrion Jenkins, but he means Robert McClelland as well even though he specified he did not see the blood pointed out by Jenkins) were confused and REALLY meant to say they saw a bullet hole high on the right forehead. Never mind that these men were interviewed many many times and never said anything to suggest the blood was really a hole and the left temple was really the right forehead. And, oh yeah, there's James Jenkins, who claimed he saw an entrance wound by the temple--where Mantik, Chesser, and Horne claim there was a wound--but who Horne, in JFK: What the Doctors Saw, claims was really describing a bullet hole high on the forehead. (So, yes, there are four witnesses--Robinson, Jenkins, Jenkins, and McClelland--who said something about a temple, only to have Mantik and Horne collectively claim they were probably talking about a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye.) 

Anyhow, this bring us to Chesser, who thinks he's found evidence on the lateral x-rays to support there was such a hole in the right forehead. Now I kinda think Chesser is an innocent, in that he readily admits he is not an expert on radiology and he readily admits there is no sign of a bullet hole--no hole, no fractures-- on the forehead on the A-P x-ray, which would be the x-ray one would study when looking for a bullet hole on the forehead. 

And, oh yeah, lest we forget, Mantik cites the trail of fragments on the x-rays as support for bullet #3...because the fragments are in a relatively straight line high on the skull and start forward of the temple entrance. Now, this almost makes sense. But let's note what's missing. While he conjures up a third bullet to explain the trail of fragments on the x-rays, he offers no explanation whatsoever for the large hole on the frontal bone and parietal bone apparent on the x-rays. Yes. he has repeatedly claimed the large fragment brought into the autopsy was frontal bone, and has long-confirmed that frontal bone is missing on the x-rays along with parietal bone in the vicinity of the trail of fragments. But he offers no explanation for this in his presentations. And I think it's because Horne is stuck on the idea NO frontal bone or parietal bone was missing from the front and top of the head prior to Dr. Humes removing this bone during a pre-surgery witnessed by Ed Reed...

Even though Ed Reed specified that what he witnessed--Humes opening up the head--took place AFTER the x-rays had been taken--the x-rays Mantik has confirmed show missing frontal bone and parietal bone.

The three headshot theory is a freakin' mess, IMO. 

 

Edited March 31 by Pat Speer