Question for DVP
John Canal
undecided as to whether it represented a real bullet fragment or an artifact.
If the later, do you think there's any chance it was added, per Mantik's claims
(which I agree with, FWIW)?
BTW, to the best of my recollection, Fiorentino was also been undecieded about
it....and that was three or four years ago.
As far as McAdams' thoughts on that go, I believe he agrees with Baden et al.,
i.e. it's a real bullet fragment.
Thanks.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
David Von Pein
Hi John C.,
I haven't changed my position on the "6.5 mm. thing" since last year.
The two posts from May 2009 linked below express my thoughts pretty
well (during one of our heated battles concerning the "BOH" and the
"EOP" and "opacities" and other assorted items of interest):
"As for my explanation for the "6.5 mm. thing" -- I have no
explanation. None whatsoever. I have no idea what that "thing" is on
the X-ray. Yes, the HSCA said it was, indeed, a metal (bullet)
fragment. But I have my doubts about that. Maybe it's an artifact that
simply was missed being seen in 1963. I really don't know. But I
certainly do not for one second believe that anyone would have wanted
to "plant" the "object/opacity" onto that X-ray.
"If it had been planted by somebody for the purpose of making
people think it was a chunk of Lee Oswald's bullet that struck JFK in
the head (with those planters certainly aware that the autopsists and
other people would say it WASN'T THERE at all in '63), then didn't the
people planting it realize that they would be in for a lot of backlash
from many conspiracy theorists in the future...i.e., conspiracists who
would be saying just exactly what they ARE saying about that "6.5 mm.
object" today -- that it is an obvious "planted" object on the X-ray?"
-- DVP; 05/19/09
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7abea215a6270e24
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4c1b898dfc120293
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>Hi John C.,
>
>I haven't changed my position on the "6.5 mm. thing" since last year.
David, I've been trying to get you and Fiorentino to get off the fence on
this issue for quite some time because it has far-reaching implications
regarding how the medical evidence was reported. Okay, I know what you're
thinking....far-reaching in my mind which doesn't count all that much.
Fair enough, but let me see if I can explain why a few of us don't think
you hard-line LNers, who believe the autopsists were mistaken about so
many of their findings, should brush this matter off like you do.
You say it "could be" an artifact...right? David, think about it--do you
honestly believe the damn thing accidently ended up 6.5 mm in diameter,
the same distance right of midline as both of the proposed entry wounds,
and in a location high in the back of the head where an entry might appear
to be more consistent with a shot from six floors up than one low in the
BOH near the EOP?
David, be honest...I mean what are the odds of that happening? Even
Sturdivan, who believes it's an artifact that accidently ended up there,
agrees with me that the odds are huge against it ending up there
accidently. IMO, my friend Larry has worked so long for the government he
inclined to cover his eyes when someone accuses them of doing something
illegal like tampering with evidence....and I've told him that.
So, after that little rant, are you honesty 100% certain it wasn't added?
Thanks for being honest.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Fiorentino
it being "added."
HOW was it done?.......Please be specific.
NOT WHO did it...But again, HOW. And how did it avoid detection when the
X-rays were examined for the various investigations?
John F.
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hrg4i...@drn.newsguy.com...
John Canal
>
>Why don't we ask you a question for a change? Let's go with your theory of
>it being "added."
>
>HOW was it done?.......Please be specific.
I pride myself in knowing the medical evidence well enough to answer most,
if not all, questions about it.
This is from Assassination Science, p.135...but I mostly put it my own
words.
1. A template was made, perhaps out of cardboard, with a 6.5 mm dia. hole
in it (actually, for some reason it was not perfectly round).
2. The original AP X-ray was duplicated, but not developed.
3. The template was placed over the duplicate so the 6.5 mm hole aligned
in the cowlick.
4. Then the duplicate was exposed again (with the template on it) allowing
the light to pass only through the hole.
5. Then the duplicate was developed. with the final x-ray being an exact
copy of the original except for the addition of the 6.5 mm opacity.
>NOT WHO did it...But again, HOW. And how did it avoid detection when the
>X-rays were examined for the various investigations?
It avoided detection because no one in wildest dreams could imagine
someone would tamper with the films.
Even Humes, who did get to see the films (regardless of what he said)
before he testified, thought he missed seeing it on 11-22-63. He and
Specter knew they had to get it into the record (it wasn't in the Autopsy
Report because it wasn't on the film on 11-22-63) so they did, albeit in
Humes' testimony.
Re. Humes' WC testimony, that's the large fragment that he recalled behind
the right eye...they even had Rydberg draw it there on CE-388. So Humes
was just covering his butt...IOW, if they didn't get it into the record
they (the autopsists) could be accused of carelessly not seeing it on
11-22-63.
Anyway, Humes couldn't find the thing on the lateral prior to is WC
testimony, and just guessed it was behind the right eye. later the Clark
Panel/Rockefeller/HSCA experts would say it was in the cowlick....as
opposed to behind the right eye.
I asked Wecht if they used a densitometer to check the density of that
very important (re. its evidentiary value) but suspicious "fragment" and
he said he didn't think they did....but added he was always suspicious
that was not a real bullet fragment. I told him Mantik's OD readings
indicated the 6.5 mm thing wasn't metal and he wasn't surprised.
In any event, Humes tried to sneak a lie through undetected when he said
he thought they recovered that fragment from behind the right eye (the 6.5
mm thing)....but the only ones that were recovered were on the surface of
the frontal lobe just above the frontal sinus....WHICH IS MEDICAL MILES
FROM "BEHIND THE RIGHT EYE".
Humes was not the only one who couldn't find an opacity on the lateral to
correspond with the 6.5 mm opacity on the AP...none of the ARRB forensic
experts found anything on the lateral either.
There is an opacity in the cowlick on the lateral...but it's not only too
short to be the 6.5 mm thing, it's not dense ebnough according to Chad and
Larry and Mantik's OD readings.
Both Custer and Ebersole testified Ebersole was summoned to the White
House after the assassination to take some measurements from the
X-rays...incredibly that operation was given a code name, "Aunt Margret's
Skirts".
I speculate that Burkley who the record shows had an office there and was
calling the shots during the autopsy and also was a life-long CT had
Ebersole add the 6.5 mm thing because he was concerned the near-EOP entry
didn't bag LHO.
And no, I didn't pull that speculation out of thin air....the concern that
Humes' low entry didn't implicate LHO was apparent because in CE-388 Hues
had Rydberg draw JFK leaning forward about 50 deg. when at Z-312 his
forward lean was only about 27 deg. Humes even testified he used Z-312 to
detremine the lean.
Some time between Humes' WC testimony and the ARRB HB&F realized they had
been duped with the 6.5 mm opacity...that's why all of them testified
(ARRB) they either didn't recall seeing the 6.5 mm opacity on 11-22-63 or
recovering it at that time.
Note, that Ebersole never was required to testify before the Warren
Commission....I wonder why.
Lastly, when I showed Chester Boyers BOTH versions of the notes from his
HSCA interview, he was enraged. The second version edited out where he
originally said the entry was to the right of the EOP and inserted his
recollection that the entry was simply in the back of the head.
He also was enraged about them adding a statement regarding the receipt
for the recovered bullet fragments....I don't recall the specifics of that
because I was mainly focused on the head entry location.
The event pertaining to Boyers' statements show the investigators weren't
above tampering with evidence in order to better make their case....and
the issues pertaining to both the 6.5 mm and Boyers' statements, IMHO, are
evidence that was true in the JFK case.
Now would you like to answer the question I asked David, i.e. "Are you
100% certain the 6.5 mm opacity doesn't represent an addition to the
films"?
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net