The "6.5 mm Object" On JFK's X-ray

[David Von Pein]

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

...experts have concluded the X-ray is a forgery...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Says the Almighty Garry Puffer as he totally ignores the 20 photo
"experts" who were specifically tasked with the chore of determining
whether or not the autopsy photos and X-rays were forgeries.

Garry completely flushes Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7 down the nearest toilet
without batting an eyelash.....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken
of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been
altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41

So what's the point of even HAVING "Photographic Panels" like the HSCA
panel at all, Garry? You think all of them blew it (or were flat-out
lying). ALL of them. Correct?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I'm talking about one specific X-ray, David. Don't change the subject.

What your "experts" called an "artifact" or a "water spot" was shown by
X-ray expert Dr. David Mantik to have been an object added to the skull
and not present the night of the autopsy. That makes it a forgery.

Dr. David Mantik was able to establish, through optical density
measurements, that the 6.5 mm object seen on President Kennedy's autopsy
x-rays is not metallic, that its image was superimposed over a smaller,
genuine fragment, and that the 6.5 mm object must have been added to the
x-ray after the autopsy.

But the almighty David Von Pein knows better than Dr. Mantik. He can say
that Dr. Mantik's opinion doesn't count or that Dr. Mantik is wrong, but
that's just lame. Other X-ray experts have found this X-ray to be quite
troubling. David does too, but it would be too painful for him to admit
it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

From the JFK Bible....

[Quote On:]

"How would this "fake 6.5 mm object," as [Dr. David] Mantik calls it,
implicate Oswald? .... What possible advantage would the conspirators have
gained by forging the object onto the X-ray film? The thought that they
would risk getting caught doing this to implicate Oswald in a case in
which he and his rifle were already overwhelmingly connected to the
assassination is irrational on its face.

One should add that if, indeed, Dr. Mantik's conspirators were willing to
do something so extremely risky and completely unnecessary to frame
Oswald, wouldn't they have found some way to bring it to the attention of
the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964?

Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the sinister
implications of the "cardboard artifact" for the first time 35 years later
when he published his findings in the book Assassination Science? Isn't
this silly, again, on its face?" -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 222 of Endnotes
in "Reclaiming History" (2007)


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID (QUOTING FROM A DISCUSSION THAT OCCURRED IN
2006):


BEN HOLMES SAID (ON APRIL 15, 2006):

No-one saw it [the "6.5mm. object" on the X-ray] on the night of the
autopsy, despite an almost frantic search for bullets or bullet fragments.


BUD SAID:

This is a lie, and Ben knows it, as I've pointed it out to him before. The
x-ray tech taking the x-rays said he pointed the object out to the chief
radiologist, who declared it an artifact. Presumably he would have told
the autopsists the same thing, who would then ignore the object
(especially if they looked in that area and saw no such fragment). When
asked about the object decades later, what reason would they have to
remember it if the chief radiologist told them it wasn't real the day of
the autopsy?


BUD ALSO SAID:

Here we see a kook trying to disregard the physical evidence on the
grounds of a legal technicality. If you are really trying to approach this
case to figure out what happened, you wouldn't be trying to throw out
evidence, or find reasons to disregard it. You'd approach each piece of
evidence on the grounds of what is likely and rational. This is what the
kooks can't do, they leap towards conspiracy every chance they can,
concocting far-fetched scenarios that they've convinced themselves are
"likely" and "rational". That's why it is useless to argue this case with
kooks, they have no ratonality to apply to the case, they can't see what
an unlikely proposition they are presenting.


More from that 2006 discussion HERE.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Very humorous.

The object is visible on an X-ray that was not seen at the autopsy.
Therefore someone forged it and entered it into the evidence.

The implications of a forged X-ray are pretty horrible for the LN claims.

David totally avoids dealing with what is right there in front of him, and
instead uses the (very lame) "why would anyone do this?" defense. This
allows him to completely avoid dealing with what is there by positing that
it cannot possibly be there because no one would be stupid enough to put
it there.

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" - Groucho Marx

Is that about right, David? No one would forge an X-ray because they might
get caught?

Your best days are most assuredly behind you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's never been proven WHAT the "6.5mm object" is, Garry. I have no idea
what it is. You have no idea what it is. And nobody else does either. So
why pretend you DO know when you know you don't know?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

An X-ray not seen at the autopsy, shown to have been forged.

This means nothing to you? Raises no flags? It's a FORGED X-ray, David.
It's not about me and what I believe, it's a forged X-ray. Deal with that
issue, would you? Stop evading the main point here.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't think it's a forged X-ray. And neither did the House Select
Committee. (Remember 7 HSCA 41, Garry? Care to ignore those 20 photo
experts yet again?)

And you do not KNOW the AP X-ray [seen here at 7 HSCA 111] is a "forged
X-ray". You're guessing. And you are guessing wrong. And 7 HSCA 41 proves
you are guessing incorrectly.

Use your head and think about Bugliosi's point again, too. Somebody fakes
an X-ray and then never makes sure the "fragment" comes to anybody's
attention?? What was the purpose of the "forgery" then? Just for the kicks
of faking an X-ray?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

There you go again... desperately trying to use speculation to over-ride
the evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh brother, Ben! That's another classic Pot/Kettle moment from a
conspiracy theorist to be sure. CTers have a patent on allowing
"speculation to over-ride the evidence".

That's too funny, Ben.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

The 6.5 mm. artifact PROVES NOTHING. Even if we make the unwarranted
assumption of the artifact being a "cardboard" forgery (per Dr.
Mantik)....ask yourself: What does this prove? Anything at all?

The idea some dolts wanted to phony up an X-ray by placing a hunk of
cardboard on it is pure idiocy. (As if the guns, bullets, shells, and
Oswald's killing of Tippit didn't seal the deal on his guilt already.)

Get real.


KEVIN T. DRAISS SAID:

I love watching DVP hand you guys your asses. Smells like napalm in the
morning. It smells like victory.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Yep, forged evidence has no meaning in a murder case. You bet.

Do your handlers know you write crap like this?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, my handlers are all drunk tonight (it's the July 4th holiday, you
know). So I'm all alone in the Langley basement. Just me and my life-sized
bust of J. Edgar to keep me company.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

From Dr. Mantik:

"To date, no one (unless forgery is invoked) has been able to explain this
bizarre 6.5 mm object on JFK's AP X-ray. Even the experts for the ARRB
(including the forensic radiologist, John J. Fitzpatrick, who was visibly
troubled by this strange feature) could not explain this fantastic object.
So we are left with this conclusion about this hardest of "hard" evidence:
an odd event occurred in JFK's X-rays that has never, before or since,
been seen in the history of radiology. Furthermore, even the best experts
in forensic radiology still cannot explain it."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can't prove the X-ray is forged and you know it.

Furthermore, as I stated before, it's just plain dumb to want to forge an
X-ray in such a manner. (With cardboard? Please.)

But you like Mantik's "cardboard" crap better than you like ANY
anti-conspiracy explanation. So, you'll swallow Mantik -- hook, line, and
cardboard.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Forged X-rays in a murder case? No meaning?

I don't have to prove it's a forgery. Dr. Mantik has done that. Of course
you know better because of all those credentials you have.

You cannot dismiss it by saying it would have been dumb or unnecessary.
Those are the arguments of someone who has lost and refuses to admit it.

You're losing your grip.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mantik has "proved" no such thing.

You've already lost your grip, Garry. You're merely latching on to
Mantik's incredibly silly "cardboard object" theory because it provides
you with a reason (albeit a really silly one) to believe the things you
want to believe about the shadowy "conspiracy" and "cover up" related to
President Kennedy's demise.

In other words, to hell with common sense. Let's just pretend it's
cardboard.

Lovely.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Tell that to Ebersole.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm going to repeat the following 2006 post that was written by Ben
Holmes' aaj/acj nemesis, Bud, wherein Bud says something to the effect
that Bethesda radiologist John H. Ebersole (at least I assume it's
Ebersole that Bud is talking about here) said that he saw the "artifact"
on the X-ray on the night of the autopsy and told somebody else about
seeing it.

Now, I'm not sure what source Bud was using when he made this comment in
2006, but I'll tell you one thing (and I'm not ashamed to admit this at
all), I'll take Bud's word for almost anything as it relates to the JFK
case rather than believe anything uttered by the pack of conspiracy-happy
hounds.

I'll also say that I have not confirmed this comment made by Bud nine
years ago, but I know a little about Mr. "Bud" at the aaj and acj forums,
and he is not likely to shoot off his mouth about something for which he
has no support whatsoever. And I doubt he did so in this instance when he
said this....

"The x-ray tech taking the x-rays said he pointed the object out to the
chief radiologist, who declared it an artifact. Presumably he would have
told the autopsists the same thing, who would then ignore the object
(especially if they looked in that area and saw no such fragment). When
asked about the object decades later, what reason would they have to
remember it if the chief radiologist told them it wasn't real the day of
the autopsy?" -- Bud; April 17, 2006


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

After digging into the Usenet forum archives some more, I found the source
that Bud was using in the 2006 post above. He was using the October 28,
1997, ARRB testimony of X-ray technician Jerrol Custer, which can be found
HERE.

Here is the relevant testimony....

QUESTION -- Earlier you pointed to what I'm going to call a half-circle
that appears to be the lightest part of the film [X-ray], and you referred
to that as a bullet fragment, is that right?

JERROL CUSTER -- Yes, sir.

QUESTION -- Do you know where that bullet fragment was located in the
body?

CUSTER -- Right orbital, superior.

QUESTION -- How do you know it was the right orbital ridge, rather than
the back of the skull?

CUSTER -- Because of the protruding eyeball.

QUESTION -- Did you see the fragment removed?

CUSTER -- No, I did not. Can I interject something here?

QUESTIONER -- Sure.

CUSTER -- This area, I pointed it out to Dr. Ebersole as a fragment. And
he called it an artifact.

-----------------------

[End ARRB Excerpts.]

-----------------------

Now, I'm not 100% sure Jerrol Custer was referring to the now-famous "6.5
mm. object" in the above testimony, but if he was referring to that
object, then it destroys Dr. David Mantik's theory about the "artifact"
being added to the X-ray at a later date.

Right after posting the above testimony of Custer, Bud said this....

"Ebersole's job was to interpret the x-rays. If Ebersole told the doctors
to ignore the object because it was an artifact, that could explain why it
doesn't appear in their accounts." -- Bud; March 26, 2010

-----------------------

FWIW, later that same day (3/26/10), John McAdams offered up this remark
in a direct reply to Bud's comments about Custer's ARRB testimony....

"That's excellent work on your part. I've tended to just blow this off,
since the autopsists weren't competent with *forensic* autopsies, and
there would have been no reason to mention the fragment anyway. But OK,
you have a comprehensible explanation." -- John McAdams; March 26, 2010

-----------------------

And just so the conspiracy theorists won't accuse me of leaving out
anything they might consider to be of importance, I'll also add this
additional piece of testimony from Jerrol Custer's ARRB session, which was
uttered by Custer immediately after he had said the words "and he called
it an artifact"....

CUSTER -- I said, "How about these fragments up here?" This is when he
told me to mind my own business.

So, based on that rather callous remark made by Dr. Ebersole, maybe some
industrious conspiracy buff can find a way to include Dr. John Ebersole
into some kind of JFK assassination cover-up.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Of course he [Mantik] has proved it, David. You quite obviously have read
nothing about what he did and how simple it is to replicate. You really
can't get much harder evidence than that. And you dismiss it because the
implications destroy everything you've been lying about for all these
years.

Pathetic.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well then, Garry, based on Mantik's "cardboard" discovery, he should be
able to get somebody in Congress (or somewhere) to re-open the JFK case
and start up a whole new investigation. Right?

After all, Mantik has "proved" forgery in the Kennedy assassination case,
correct?

We can call the new investigative body "The Cardboard Commission". (Has a
nice ring.)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

How does one reply to such nonsense?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Garry,

Do you really believe Dr. Mantik's "cardboard artifact" tears down the
entire case that indicates Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the JFK and
Tippit murders?

Really and truly? You believe that?

How does one even begin to respond to such a nonsensical leap of faith?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

The three autopsy pathologists did not see this object the night of the
autopsy. They did not ignore it because they were told it was an artifact,
good old Bud notwithstanding. They have said that they did not SEE it in
the X-rays that night.

Not there on 11/22. Is there later. Hmmm.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But, as I posted previously, Jerrol Custer's testimony indicates at least
the *possibility* that the "thing" WAS there on the X-ray on 11/22/63.

Which, if true, blows Mantik's cardboard theory sky high.

And, as I take another look at the alleged phony X-ray in question (at 7
HSCA 111), let's see what "object" on this X-ray best fits the description
we see in Jerrol Custer's 1997 ARRB testimony....

"A half-circle that appears to be the lightest part of the film [X-ray]."

...which appears on the X-ray (anatomically speaking) in the...

"Right orbital, superior."

Hmmm. I wonder what object in this X-ray sort of fits that description and
location?....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sH6DYhBlm98/VZmWa-qxYuI/AAAAAAABGnM/3BuiBFpPyBo/s1600/Controversial-JFK-Xray-7HSCA111.jpg

David Von Pein
July 4-5, 2015

-----------------------------------------------------

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html

-----------------------------------------------------

[mainframetech]

Sheesh! The usual DVP edited conversation, putting in only those parts
that make him look better, and others look worse. A sad situation. Here
is a perfect example of using information the wrong way. The information
argued about above could be an indication of how hard the cosnpirators
worked to cover up things in the case rather than an indication of
something proving Oswald was guilty, which has already been proven isn't
true.

We start wtih an attempt to discredit David Mantik, MD, PhD. He didn't
get all those letters running track. He has worked with X-rays and that
field for years. He's not a fool as portrayed. He found through
intensive work that the X-ray with the 6.5 mass was a forgery, as later
Jerrol Custer said was the case when a researcher went to the archives and
came back telling Custer what he found on the various X-rays, and Custer
was able to say unequivocally that they ALL were copies, and no originals
were in the whole set.

DVP made the point that why would cosnpirators be foolish enough to
fake a mass on an X-ray when there was already enough evidence on Oswald
to convict him. But that isn't the case. Much of the evidence is really
evidence of conaspiracy and not of a guilty 'patsy'. In actuality, the
appearance had caused folks in this conversation here to state that they
believe that it IS evidence and IS valid. So if it's fake, the fakery
worked! As part of that, I have to agree with the fact that the
prosectors when doing their clandestine 'surgery' on the head BEFORE the
autopsy, also made it clear to the 2 X-ray technicians (Reed, Custer) that
they were looking for bullets and fragments, and they removed the brain in
their search for such.

Saying that they all missed the supposed fragment in an X-ray, and
saying later it was an 'artifact' won't wash. An artifact of that size
and as obvious as it was, had to be explained, and not simply forgotten.
It stood out like a sore thumb and there had to be comments in any of the
logs or reports that it was an 'artifact' and not leave readers to figure
it out every time they looked at an X-ray. It was a fake.

As noted above, the item that Custer was speaking about had to be a
different item on an X-ray, and not the large object. Many of the
technicians that assisted at the autopsy went over to belief that the
murder was a conspiracy after that night at the autopsy. The most
shameful thing that happened si that they SAW the wound from the kill shot
and Finck (the expert) even commented that it was probably an entry.
That's the bullet hole in the right forehead/temple area, and it can be
sen by ANYONE that has the courage to enlarge the photo knopw as the
'stare-of-death', and look in between the hair hanging down on the
foreehad. Here's the photo:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg

After enlargement, the circular bullet hole with the slightly raised
rim is seen quite easily. Of course, this makes it clear that it came
from a frontal shot, so many bel;iefs will need to be overhauled.

Chris

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Geez, Louise, David. You post all this stuff from Vince B and Bud, etc,
when you should have just used ME. I thought you followed what happens in
the research community. I shot Mantik down on this and other points years
ago.

The last half of this chapter is devoted to the 6.5 mm fragment:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18%3Ax-rayspecs

The 6.5 mm fragment was not on the back of the head; it was the large
fragment removed from behind the eye at autopsy.

http://www.patspeer.com/believingis.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/fragmentfragment.jpg

Now, this so enraged Mantik that he posted a response to this on CTKA,
where I was not allowed to respond.

Only he made a bunch of mistakes there, as well. Which I pointed out on my
website and elsewhere.

And this led to our "debate" at the 2013 Wecht Conference. While the focus
of that debate was the Harper fragment, the underlying subtext was "who
was more credible." I believe I came away the winner.

The so-called 6.5 mm fragment was the fragment removed from behind the eye
at autopsy. And that's a fact.

[David Von Pein]

Lost in a world of perceived (and imagined) plotters.

Conspiracy everywhere you look....plotters in every nook and cranny trying
to frame Oswald for TWO murders....evidence planting....evidence
tampering....crooked cops....an even crooked(er) FBI....and a Warren
Commission that never wanted (or intended) to find the truth at all.

This, then, is the imaginative world inhabited by a conspiracy theorist
named Chris/Mainframe.

As Mr. Frame/Chris said --- "a sad situation" (indeed).

Footnote ----

I want to thank Bud (again) for his many years of valuable input at this
forum. The Usenet archive is a much better place to scour and search
knowing that Bud's common-sense posts are going to regularly turn up in
search results, such as this post written by Bud in response to some
stupid remark that was uttered by David G. Healy one day in March of
2010....

"This is why your hero [Ben Holmes] killfiled me, no other reason. Now
you'll see the real intellectual coward come out in him. Last time I
brought up this Custer dialog, he sputtered that it was a different
fragment being discussed. Right Ben, it's a different lightest colored
half-circle fragment in the right orbital superior being discussed." --
Bud; March 26, 2010

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JN-qJ8wkRVo/s6PNjzkqeOUJ

As I said at my "Part 970" page on my website, I'm not absolutely 100%
sure that Custer and Ebersole were talking about the famous "6.5 mm.
opacity" when Ebersole told Custer it was an "artifact". But if they
WEREN'T talking about the 6.5 mm. object that David Mantik is so obsessed
with, it would make for an interesting coincidence, wouldn't it? I.E.,
"half-circle" in shape; the "lightest" part of the X-ray; located in the
"right" part of the head.

Those coincidences should make even Dr. Mantik squirm just a little bit
and scratch his head in bewilderment.

[David Von Pein]

Thank you for weighing in on this, Pat. I appreciate it. (And thanks for
the links.)

[Herbert Blenner]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 7:08:36 PM UTC-4, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:

Humes removed two fragments from behind the eye. Neither fragment could
have passed for being round with a 6.5 mm diameter. The larger fragment
measured 7 mm by 2 mm and the smaller fragment was 3 mm by 1 mm.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 10:41:43 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Lost in a world of perceived (and imagined) plotters.
>
> Conspiracy everywhere you look....plotters in every nook and cranny trying
> to frame Oswald for TWO murders....evidence planting....evidence
> tampering....crooked cops....an even crooked(er) FBI....and a Warren
> Commission that never wanted (or intended) to find the truth at all.
>
> This, then, is the imaginative world inhabited by a conspiracy theorist
> named Chris/Mainframe.
>
> As Mr. Frame/Chris said --- "a sad situation" (indeed).
>

The nickname is 'mainframetech' or 'mainframe' you don't see me
abbreviating your name to 'pain'. Try to be nice like the rest of us CTs
and not nasty like the Amazing Randi crowd of skeptics. As to
imagination, it takes a lot of that to maintain any level of acceptance in
the WCR, which has gotten old and tired and needs a replacement with some
truth.

> Footnote ----
>
> I want to thank Bud (again) for his many years of valuable input at this
> forum. The Usenet archive is a much better place to scour and search
> knowing that Bud's common-sense posts are going to regularly turn up in
> search results, such as this post written by Bud in response to some
> stupid remark that was uttered by David G. Healy one day in March of
> 2010....
>

Do you really feel that Bud has been a useful helper? My take is that
he just enjoys throwing insults.

> "This is why your hero [Ben Holmes] killfiled me, no other reason. Now
> you'll see the real intellectual coward come out in him. Last time I
> brought up this Custer dialog, he sputtered that it was a different
> fragment being discussed. Right Ben, it's a different lightest colored
> half-circle fragment in the right orbital superior being discussed." --
> Bud; March 26, 2010
>

As to Custer, what have you figured out with his statement in sworn
testimony where he says he saw a 'fragment' about 3-4 centimeters long
fall out of the BACK of JFK when raising the body up for a better X-ray.
That's about the size of a bullet. He said that Finck had quickly grabbed
it up and it was never seen again. Another 'disappeared' bullet!

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JN-qJ8wkRVo/s6PNjzkqeOUJ
>
> As I said at my "Part 970" page on my website, I'm not absolutely 100%
> sure that Custer and Ebersole were talking about the famous "6.5 mm.
> opacity" when Ebersole told Custer it was an "artifact". But if they
> WEREN'T talking about the 6.5 mm. object that David Mantik is so obsessed
> with, it would make for an interesting coincidence, wouldn't it? I.E.,
> "half-circle" in shape; the "lightest" part of the X-ray; located in the
> "right" part of the head.
>
> Those coincidences should make even Dr. Mantik squirm just a little bit
> and scratch his head in bewilderment.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/6/2015 10:41 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Lost in a world of perceived (and imagined) plotters.
>
> Conspiracy everywhere you look....plotters in every nook and cranny trying
> to frame Oswald for TWO murders....evidence planting....evidence
> tampering....crooked cops....an even crooked(er) FBI....and a Warren
> Commission that never wanted (or intended) to find the truth at all.
>

Why for TWO murders. The Tippit murder does not have to be linked to the
Kennedy murder.

The WC was ordered to not look for the truth. They did their job well.

> This, then, is the imaginative world inhabited by a conspiracy theorist
> named Chris/Mainframe.
>
> As Mr. Frame/Chris said --- "a sad situation" (indeed).
>
> Footnote ----
>
> I want to thank Bud (again) for his many years of valuable input at this

You praise trolls who hide behind aliases?

> forum. The Usenet archive is a much better place to scour and search
> knowing that Bud's common-sense posts are going to regularly turn up in
> search results, such as this post written by Bud in response to some
> stupid remark that was uttered by David G. Healy one day in March of
> 2010....
>
> "This is why your hero [Ben Holmes] killfiled me, no other reason. Now
> you'll see the real intellectual coward come out in him. Last time I
> brought up this Custer dialog, he sputtered that it was a different
> fragment being discussed. Right Ben, it's a different lightest colored
> half-circle fragment in the right orbital superior being discussed." --
> Bud; March 26, 2010
>

Oh my, someone got killfiled. How sad.

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JN-qJ8wkRVo/s6PNjzkqeOUJ
>
> As I said at my "Part 970" page on my website, I'm not absolutely 100%
> sure that Custer and Ebersole were talking about the famous "6.5 mm.
> opacity" when Ebersole told Custer it was an "artifact". But if they
> WEREN'T talking about the 6.5 mm. object that David Mantik is so obsessed
> with, it would make for an interesting coincidence, wouldn't it? I.E.,
> "half-circle" in shape; the "lightest" part of the X-ray; located in the
> "right" part of the head.
>

I'm obsessed with the 6.5mm object because it's an impossible hoax. It
can't be a bullet fragment, because Oswald ammo use bullets that are 6.8
mm wide. So some world renowned forensic pathologist simply made up the
"6.5" from his imagination because he thought Oswald's bullets were 6.5 mm
wide. Very obvious hoax. And no WC defender is brave enough to admit it.
It's not just a simple mistake to admit like the weight of the brain. It
is like pulling out the key card which causes the whole House of Cards to
fall down. No WC defender wants to be remembered for that faux pas.

> Those coincidences should make even Dr. Mantik squirm just a little bit
> and scratch his head in bewilderment.
>

And it makes YOU run away like a little girl who peed her panties.

[Anthony Marsh]

You're just making up crap again. If that were true, it would have been
put into evidence. Show it to me. Give me the CE number or at least the
C number.

> http://www.patspeer.com/believingis.jpg
> http://www.patspeer.com/fragmentfragment.jpg
>

You think that CE843 is 6.5 mm round? Face it, some forensic pathologist
is pulling a hoax on us. He thinks an Oswald bullet is 6.5 mm wide so
says "6.5" to make us believe it is an Oswald bullet. An Oswald bullet
is actually 6.8 mm in diameter.
It's a hoax.

> Now, this so enraged Mantik that he posted a response to this on CTKA,
> where I was not allowed to respond.
>
> Only he made a bunch of mistakes there, as well. Which I pointed out on my
> website and elsewhere.
>
> And this led to our "debate" at the 2013 Wecht Conference. While the focus
> of that debate was the Harper fragment, the underlying subtext was "who
> was more credible." I believe I came away the winner.
>

Pretty weak field.

> The so-called 6.5 mm fragment was the fragment removed from behind the eye
> at autopsy. And that's a fact.

Balony. That fragment was tiny, not 6.5 mm and was rectangular in shape,
not round.

>

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Did you look at the links? Or read the chapter?

The large fragment on the x-ray is quite clearly the fragment removed from
behind the eye. The smaller fragment is visible right next to it.

The photo of the large fragment discovered by John Hunt in the FBI's
files, which shows the shape of the large fragment before it was cut for
testing, reveals it to have been consistent with the fragment on the
X-ray.

This fragment was not 6.5 mm, btw--that was a myth created by the Clark
Panel which was then repeated by CTs because it smelled so bad.

The fragment on the X-rays Mantik and others (starting with Lattimer)
claim is the 7 by 2 fragment recovered at autopsy from behind the eye, was
not behind the eye at all, but on the forehead. It's quite possible, in
fact, that this fragment was on the outside of the forehead. Some of those
claiming this as the fragment recovered at autopsy are aware of this
inconsistency, moreover, and have offered that those saying the fragment
was found behind the eye MEANT to say that it was above the eye on the
forehead. Bunkum.

[David Von Pein]

CHRIS / MAINFRAME SAID:

Do you really feel that Bud has been a useful helper?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

One of the best.


CHRIS SAID:

My take is that he [Bud] just enjoys throwing insults.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Only when it's deserved. (Which, granted, is a lot of the time, as your
continual "Anybody But Oswald" posts illustrate.)

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 3:59:31 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 10:41:43 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Lost in a world of perceived (and imagined) plotters.
> >
> > Conspiracy everywhere you look....plotters in every nook and cranny trying
> > to frame Oswald for TWO murders....evidence planting....evidence
> > tampering....crooked cops....an even crooked(er) FBI....and a Warren
> > Commission that never wanted (or intended) to find the truth at all.
> >
> > This, then, is the imaginative world inhabited by a conspiracy theorist
> > named Chris/Mainframe.
> >
> > As Mr. Frame/Chris said --- "a sad situation" (indeed).
> >
>
> The nickname is 'mainframetech' or 'mainframe' you don't see me
> abbreviating your name to 'pain'. Try to be nice like the rest of us CTs
> and not nasty like the Amazing Randi crowd of skeptics. As to
> imagination, it takes a lot of that to maintain any level of acceptance in
> the WCR, which has gotten old and tired and needs a replacement with some
> truth.
>
>
>
> > Footnote ----
> >
> > I want to thank Bud (again) for his many years of valuable input at this
> > forum. The Usenet archive is a much better place to scour and search
> > knowing that Bud's common-sense posts are going to regularly turn up in
> > search results, such as this post written by Bud in response to some
> > stupid remark that was uttered by David G. Healy one day in March of
> > 2010....
> >
>
>
> Do you really feel that Bud has been a useful helper?

<snicker> Not to you.

> My take is that
> he just enjoys throwing insults.

My take is that you enjoy being deserving of insults.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Read the chapter. Look at the images. Learn.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/7/2015 3:59 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 10:41:43 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> Lost in a world of perceived (and imagined) plotters.
>>
>> Conspiracy everywhere you look....plotters in every nook and cranny trying
>> to frame Oswald for TWO murders....evidence planting....evidence
>> tampering....crooked cops....an even crooked(er) FBI....and a Warren
>> Commission that never wanted (or intended) to find the truth at all.
>>
>> This, then, is the imaginative world inhabited by a conspiracy theorist
>> named Chris/Mainframe.
>>
>> As Mr. Frame/Chris said --- "a sad situation" (indeed).
>>
>
> The nickname is 'mainframetech' or 'mainframe' you don't see me
> abbreviating your name to 'pain'. Try to be nice like the rest of us CTs

You should be abbreviating his name to DVP.
I thought your nickname was GIGO.

> and not nasty like the Amazing Randi crowd of skeptics. As to

But he gets paid to do it. DVP does it for free.

> imagination, it takes a lot of that to maintain any level of acceptance in
> the WCR, which has gotten old and tired and needs a replacement with some
> truth.
>
>
>
>> Footnote ----
>>
>> I want to thank Bud (again) for his many years of valuable input at this
>> forum. The Usenet archive is a much better place to scour and search
>> knowing that Bud's common-sense posts are going to regularly turn up in
>> search results, such as this post written by Bud in response to some
>> stupid remark that was uttered by David G. Healy one day in March of
>> 2010....
>>
>
>
> Do you really feel that Bud has been a useful helper? My take is that
> he just enjoys throwing insults.
>

What else is there for him to do? Feed the hogs?

[Anthony Marsh]

He said THE fragment singular. Not one of two.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 6:55:25 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/6/2015 10:41 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Lost in a world of perceived (and imagined) plotters.
> >
> > Conspiracy everywhere you look....plotters in every nook and cranny trying
> > to frame Oswald for TWO murders....evidence planting....evidence
> > tampering....crooked cops....an even crooked(er) FBI....and a Warren
> > Commission that never wanted (or intended) to find the truth at all.
> >
>
> Why for TWO murders. The Tippit murder does not have to be linked to the
> Kennedy murder.
>
> The WC was ordered to not look for the truth.

Whats your excuse?

> They did their job well.
>
>
> > This, then, is the imaginative world inhabited by a conspiracy theorist
> > named Chris/Mainframe.
> >
> > As Mr. Frame/Chris said --- "a sad situation" (indeed).
> >
> > Footnote ----
> >
> > I want to thank Bud (again) for his many years of valuable input at this
>
> You praise trolls who hide behind aliases?

I don`t think he was praising me for that.

> > forum. The Usenet archive is a much better place to scour and search
> > knowing that Bud's common-sense posts are going to regularly turn up in
> > search results, such as this post written by Bud in response to some
> > stupid remark that was uttered by David G. Healy one day in March of
> > 2010....
> >
> > "This is why your hero [Ben Holmes] killfiled me, no other reason. Now
> > you'll see the real intellectual coward come out in him. Last time I
> > brought up this Custer dialog, he sputtered that it was a different
> > fragment being discussed. Right Ben, it's a different lightest colored
> > half-circle fragment in the right orbital superior being discussed." --
> > Bud; March 26, 2010
> >
>
> Oh my, someone got killfiled. How sad.

Every time a person gets killfiled an angel loses it wings.

> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JN-qJ8wkRVo/s6PNjzkqeOUJ
> >
> > As I said at my "Part 970" page on my website, I'm not absolutely 100%
> > sure that Custer and Ebersole were talking about the famous "6.5 mm.
> > opacity" when Ebersole told Custer it was an "artifact". But if they
> > WEREN'T talking about the 6.5 mm. object that David Mantik is so obsessed
> > with, it would make for an interesting coincidence, wouldn't it? I.E.,
> > "half-circle" in shape; the "lightest" part of the X-ray; located in the
> > "right" part of the head.
> >
>
> I'm obsessed with the 6.5mm object because it's an impossible hoax. It
> can't be a bullet fragment, because Oswald ammo use bullets that are 6.8
> mm wide. So some world renowned forensic pathologist simply made up the
> "6.5" from his imagination because he thought Oswald's bullets were 6.5 mm
> wide. Very obvious hoax. And no WC defender is brave enough to admit it.
> It's not just a simple mistake to admit like the weight of the brain. It
> is like pulling out the key card which causes the whole House of Cards to
> fall down. No WC defender wants to be remembered for that faux pas.
>
> > Those coincidences should make even Dr. Mantik squirm just a little bit
> > and scratch his head in bewilderment.
> >
>
>
> And it makes YOU run away like a little girl who peed her panties.

Next time you cry about the moderation remember you got away with that.

[Herbert Blenner]

I have read your work and find it highly deficient. In short, you have
missed the boat.

Members of the Forensic Pathology Panel viewed the anterior-posterior
X-rays and made startling observations. They reported a round radiopaque
shadow ten centimeters above the external occipital protuberance. These
observations conflict with the anterior-posterior X-rays that show a
circular object with a small circular notch a few centimeters below the
cowlick.

The panel placed the object a few centimeters inferior to the reported
location of four centimeters above the external occipital protuberance.
This is the lesser of the two problems reported by panel members.

Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel - 7HSCA, 130

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0070b.htm

(334) The panel examined X-ray films of the anterior-posterior view of the
skull (No. 1) and left (No. 2), and right (No. 3) lateral views of the
skull with the naked eye and with 10 x magnification. Film No. 2 reveals
the defect referred to above in the posterior parietal region,* in a
location corresponding to the previously described skin defect in the
"cowlick" area of the scalp. Embedded in the skull in the lower margin of
this defect is a radiopaque shadow which, in the opinion of the panel, is
a fragment of the missile. This shadow is 10 centimeters above the
external occipital protuberance and 2.5 centimeters to the right of the
midline in this film. One surface of this fragment, visualized in film No.
1, is round. The maximum diameter of the fragment measures 0.65
centimeter.

More importantly the panel misrepresented the shape of the visible portion
of the fragment as round. In reality its shape differed from round by a
small circular arc which cut part of an otherwise circular perimeter. This
small cut appears between 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock where 12 o'clock is
nearest the top of the graphic.

http://hdblenner.com/objection_files/enhancedap100.jpg

The small cut presents a devastating problem for the panel's explanation
of this object since the mechanical stress required for its production
increases with curvature of the perimeter. The stress to punch this piece
in one step become infinite at each slope discontinuity. At best, members
of the panel mistaken a machined object produced by a two-step process for
a piece of bone punched out a skull by an entering bullet.

http://hdblenner.com/objection_files/enhancedap200.jpg

Viewing the enhanced anterior-posterior X-ray under magnification reveals telltale details. A magnification of 200% shows that the immediate background of the fragment mismatches its surrounding region. Further a highly regular rectangular border separate the featureless background from the details of the surrounding region. A 300% magnification corroborates this earlier evidence showing that our copy of the enhanced anterior-posterior X-ray is a composite.

http://hdblenner.com/objection_files/enhancedap300.jpg

A smoothly curving perimeter between 7 o'clock and 3 o'clock precludes
pixelization as the cause of the straight edges on other portions of the
perimeter and the boundary between the featureless background and its
surrounding region.

This indisputable evidence of composition explains the easily recognized
misplacement of the skull entry wound by the Clark and the Forensic
Pathology Panels. Apparently they recognized a problem with the shape of
the fragment so they created a distraction.

[Bud]

Just the trolls.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

As shown on my images, there are two fragments behind the eye on the
lateral x-ray which line up perfectly with the large fragment and adjacent
fragment on the A-P. All the witnesses to the autopsy said these fragments
were removed from behind the eye. The fragment most researchers claim to
be the fragment removed at autopsy is inches away from this location above
the eye on the forehead. It only follows then that the fragments on the
A-P are indeed the fragments removed during the autopsy.

So why all the confusion? The Clark Panel was tasked with refuting all the
"junk" in the research community, including the claim by Thompson the low
entrance/high exit trajectory pushed by the WC made no sense. So they
"found" themselves a wound high on the back of the head in the autopsy
photos, and sought confirmation for this wound on the x-rays. And
whaddayouknow? They spotted a large fragment on the A-P x-ray and used
this to suggest a 6.5 mm bullet entered the back of the head, and left a
slice on the back of the head as proof.

This was toxic nonsense, of course. The fragment was not on the back of
the head, and it was not 6.5 mm.

But will anyone admit this? No, of course not. LNs won't admit it because
it would mean admitting that the Clark Panel made mistakes and/or lied,
and that the Justice Dept. by extension supported their lies. And CTs
won't admit it because they'd much rather believe the fragment was added
onto the x-rays, and that the x-rays are fake, than that they were
misinterpreted, perhaps innocently.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you've made up a new theory. Now the tiny fragment can be outside the
forehead? On top of the skin? Explain how it gets there.
Cross-contamination?

Who said a fragment was recovered from BEHIND the eye?

[Anthony Marsh]

You're not saying anything I haven't said thousands of times.
But it is a little more complicated than your explanation.