6.5mm Virtually Round Object
Ben Holmes
This is just a repost of a message from several days ago. It seems
that no LN wishes to discuss this subject when the evidence is laid
out. So I'm just going to point it out again, for any lurkers who may
be interested in proof of the government's involvement in framing LHO.
On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 17:26:49 GMT, "Mitch Todd"
<jere...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>
>> My favorite question is why couldn't anyone see and describe the 6.5mm
>> virtually round object in the AP X-ray until 1966. Was everyone at
>> the autopsy blind? We have testimony that the search for a bullet was
>> practically frantic, yet nobody noticed a 6.5mm virtually round object
>> in the X-ray??? The prosectors evidently had no problem seeing
>> objects far smaller on the X-ray...
>
>Why are you so sure that no one mentioned it?
For the best of all reasons... nobody *did*.
They were in a *frantic* search for a bullet, and here's an OBVIOUS
bullet in the AP X-ray... yet they never mentioned it.
It's *incredible* that nobody would comment on the fact that here is
*PROOF* that the assassin was using a 6.5mm bullet, *if* in fact this
object actually appeared on the X-ray in 1963.
>The only fragments mentioned in the autopsy report are the ones that were
>removed.
And the only ones removed were the ones *big enough* to remove.
I'd say a 6.5mm virtually round object was big enough, wouldn't you?
Particularly when it's twice the size of what Dr. Humes thought was
the largest fragment found.
>Otherwise, they are dealt with collectively: "roentgenograms of the
>skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along a line corresponding with
>a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-
>orbital ridge."
>
>Humes goes into a bit more detail later, telling the Warren Commission,
>
> "these [x-rays] had disclosed to us multiple minute fragments of
> radiopaque material traversing a line from the wound in the occiput
> to just above the right eye, with *a rather sizable fragment visible by
> X-ray just above the right eye*." [my emphasis]
Yep... this was the 7x2 mm fragment... also visible in the Lateral
X-ray, thus pinpointing it as DIFFERENT than the 6.5mm virtually round
object, which is at the BACK OF THE HEAD in the Lateral X-ray.
>Humes later tells the Commission that this large fragment was located
>"above and very slightly behind the right orbit." Humes returns to the
>large fragment a few questions later, this time adding some context
>with respect to the trajectory of the large fragment:
>
> "Our interpretation is, sir, that the missile struck the right occipital
> region, penetrated through the two tables of the skull, making the
> characteristic coning on the inner table which I have previously
> referred to. That one portion of the missile and judging by the size
> of the defect thus produced, the major portion of the missile, made
> its exit through this large defect. A second portion of the missile
> or multiple second portions were deflected, and traversed a
> distance as enumerated by this interrupted line, with the major
> portion of that fragment coming to lodge in the position indicated
> [in the Rydberg lateral drawing]."
>
>A number of people will tell you that Humes is describing the dog-legged
>shape seen about 4-5 cm above the right orbit in the AP x-ray. Don't
>believe them. The location of Humes' large fragment is shown in the
>Rydberg drawing, (helpfully labeled "fragment"). This location is far too
>low to be the dog-leg fragment. In fact, the *only* image in the AP x-ray
>that would account for a fragment at the position indicated is the 6.5mm
>object.
Nope... not at all. The 6.5mm object is at the BACK of the head.
And the 7x2mm object, that Dr. Humes referred to as the larger of the
two, was in this position shown on the Rydberg drawing... behind and
above the right eye. Although the Rydberg drawing does indeed show it
perhaps a 1/2 inch or perhaps an inch too low. But this doesn't
matter, since THERE IS NOTHING ON THE X-RAYS AT THE PRECISE RYDBERG
DRAWING SITE.
You also have a problem in that you can *see* the 7x2 mm fragment in
the place where Dr. Humes described it, and it's NOT the 6.5mm
fragment that can ALSO be seen in the same X-ray.
>So it seems that the autopsists indeed saw the 6.5mm image,
>after all.
Nope. They found *two* out of *three* largest visible objects on the
X-rays. Why did they decide to ignore a 6.5mm virtually round object?
>Interestingly, Humes relates, "we attempted to further examine the brain,
>and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a
>size which would permit us to recover it."
Dr. Humes is SPECIFICALLY referring to the 7x2mm fragment "above and
somewhat behind the President's [right] eye". He states that he found
it right where he was looking for it. The 6.5mm object is in the BACK
of the head, not near the front. Try taking a look at the lateral
X-ray... or you can see what the Clark Panel or HSCA said about the
location of this 6.5mm object, if you don't believe me.
>The search for "this fragment" turned up no large fragment,
Untrue... the search for "this fragment" turned up precisely what Dr.
Humes was looking for, precisely where he was looking for it:
Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing
there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the
President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's
eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and
******************************************************************************
IN FACT LOCATED THIS SMALL FRAGMENT, [emphasis added]
******************************************************************************
which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this
location.
Mr. SPECTER - How large was that fragment, Dr. Humes?
Commander HUMES - I refer to my notes for the measurements of that
fragment. I find in going back to my report, sir, that we found, in
fact, two small fragments in this approximate location. The larger of
these measured 7 by 2 mm., the smaller 3 by 1 mm.
>resulting instead in the recovery of the 7x2mm and 1x3mm fragments.
Unfortunately for your theory, they found PRECISELY what they were
looking for - and what can be *seen* in the AP and Lateral X-rays...
but simply not the 6.5mm object.
>MST
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>This is just a repost of a message from several days ago. It seems
>that no LN wishes to discuss this subject when the evidence is laid
>out. So I'm just going to point it out again, for any lurkers who may
>be interested in proof of the government's involvement in framing LHO.
>
>
>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 17:26:49 GMT, "Mitch Todd"
><jere...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>>
>>> My favorite question is why couldn't anyone see and describe the 6.5mm
>>> virtually round object in the AP X-ray until 1966. Was everyone at
>>> the autopsy blind? We have testimony that the search for a bullet was
>>> practically frantic, yet nobody noticed a 6.5mm virtually round object
>>> in the X-ray??? The prosectors evidently had no problem seeing
>>> objects far smaller on the X-ray...
>>
>>Why are you so sure that no one mentioned it?
>
>For the best of all reasons... nobody *did*.
>
>They were in a *frantic* search for a bullet, and here's an OBVIOUS
>bullet in the AP X-ray... yet they never mentioned it.
Huh? There is no bullet in the x-ray.
>
>It's *incredible* that nobody would comment on the fact that here is
>*PROOF* that the assassin was using a 6.5mm bullet, *if* in fact this
>object actually appeared on the X-ray in 1963.
>
The kind of bullet used was determined by examining CE 399 and the two
large fragments recovered from the front of the limo.
Indeed, all these were shown to have come from Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons.
Given this, a fragment in an x-ray isn't terribly important.
>>The only fragments mentioned in the autopsy report are the ones that were
>>removed.
>
>And the only ones removed were the ones *big enough* to remove.
>
>I'd say a 6.5mm virtually round object was big enough, wouldn't you?
>Particularly when it's twice the size of what Dr. Humes thought was
>the largest fragment found.
>
We don't know it's more than twice the mass, because it's apparently
just a sliver.
And it was embedded in the skull.
It's visible on both the AP and the lateral x-rays.
You knew that, right?
From 7 HSCA:
301. Skull X-ray No. 2, a lateral view of the head, reveals rather
marked disruption of the smooth contour of the skull on the right side
in the. temporal-parietal region, with multiple fractures through
other portions of the skull. There is sharp disruption of the normal
smooth contour of the skull 10 centimeters (as measured in the X-ray)
above the external occipital protuberance, with suggested beveling of
the inner table and with fracture lines radiating superiorly and
inferiorly. (See fig. 16, showing the beveling process.) At this point
there is an irregular, radiopaque, sharply outlined bullet fragment.
Huh?
The term "precise Rydberg drawing site" is an oxymoron!
Nothing was precise about the Rydberg drawings.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
McAdams) wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:28:23 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org>
>wrote:
>
>>This is just a repost of a message from several days ago. It seems
>>that no LN wishes to discuss this subject when the evidence is laid
>>out. So I'm just going to point it out again, for any lurkers who may
>>be interested in proof of the government's involvement in framing LHO.
Amusingly enough, the boss of the censored group has taken a shot at
this... as everyone can see, he couldn't seem to do very much. I
expected more from John.
>>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 17:26:49 GMT, "Mitch Todd"
>><jere...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My favorite question is why couldn't anyone see and describe the 6.5mm
>>>> virtually round object in the AP X-ray until 1966. Was everyone at
>>>> the autopsy blind? We have testimony that the search for a bullet was
>>>> practically frantic, yet nobody noticed a 6.5mm virtually round object
>>>> in the X-ray??? The prosectors evidently had no problem seeing
>>>> objects far smaller on the X-ray...
>>>
>>>Why are you so sure that no one mentioned it?
>>
>>For the best of all reasons... nobody *did*.
>>
>>They were in a *frantic* search for a bullet, and here's an OBVIOUS
>>bullet in the AP X-ray... yet they never mentioned it.
>
>Huh? There is no bullet in the x-ray.
That's strange... both the Clark Panel and the HSCA stated that this
6.5mm virtually round object *WAS* a bullet fragment.
Are you in disagreement with both the Clark Panel and the HSCA?
Or are you nitpicking the leaving out of the obvious term "fragment"?
Why not answer the question? You know very well that there was a
virtually *frantic* search for a bullet during the autopsy. There's
plenty of testimony describing the puzzlement at not finding one. Yet
here is an *OBVIOUS* one, and not a single comment about it. What is
your response to THIS rather difficult problem?
>>It's *incredible* that nobody would comment on the fact that here is
>>*PROOF* that the assassin was using a 6.5mm bullet, *if* in fact this
>>object actually appeared on the X-ray in 1963.
>
>The kind of bullet used was determined by examining CE 399 and the two
>large fragments recovered from the front of the limo.
>
>Indeed, all these were shown to have come from Oswald's rifle to the
>exclusion of all other weapons.
>
>Given this, a fragment in an x-ray isn't terribly important.
It obviously isn't *now*. Who knows what the person/s who created
this fake object on the X-ray thought.
But it *exists*, and you're going to have to deal with it.
Either by demonstrating that it *did* exist in 1963 - or by explaining
how it could have been missed.
Or, as some have tried, by positing some damage to the X-ray... the
so-called "Smart-Drop" theory.
Or even, as a troll tried recently, to explain it as a contact lense.
With no reasonable explanation by your "side", John, the reason that
makes the most sense is that someone tried to frame LHO using the
X-rays.
>>>The only fragments mentioned in the autopsy report are the ones that were
>>>removed.
>>
>>And the only ones removed were the ones *big enough* to remove.
>>
>>I'd say a 6.5mm virtually round object was big enough, wouldn't you?
>>Particularly when it's twice the size of what Dr. Humes thought was
>>the largest fragment found.
>
>We don't know it's more than twice the mass,
Are you an idiot, or are you just pretending to be?
Twice the size is NOT equivalent to twice the mass. In fact, the two
statements have very little in common.
I was quite accurate when I was referring to the size of the object.
Why would you try this rather pathetic trick to turn it into a
discussion of "mass"?
Now, deal with the fact that an object that had a surface area DOUBLE
that of the largest fragment Dr. Humes pulled out was missed.
>because it's apparently just a sliver.
That shows up as a virtually *round* object.
"Sliver" is not generally a term used when referring to an object that
is virtually round.
This is why I *accurately* refer to it as the 6.5mm virtually round
object. "Sliver" is at the very least - a highly deceptive
description.
>And it was embedded in the skull.
>
>It's visible on both the AP and the lateral x-rays.
>
>You knew that, right?
Since I've posted many times on this subject, and also *STATE* this
just below, your question is apparently rather silly.
But, as I'm sure everyone who's reading this can note... you're *not*
dealing with the problem... you're just posting words. Why not deal
with the problem that this object poses?
>From 7 HSCA:
>
>301. Skull X-ray No. 2, a lateral view of the head, reveals rather
>marked disruption of the smooth contour of the skull on the right side
>in the. temporal-parietal region, with multiple fractures through
>other portions of the skull. There is sharp disruption of the normal
>smooth contour of the skull 10 centimeters (as measured in the X-ray)
>above the external occipital protuberance, with suggested beveling of
>the inner table and with fracture lines radiating superiorly and
>inferiorly. (See fig. 16, showing the beveling process.) At this point
>there is an irregular, radiopaque, sharply outlined bullet fragment.
Thankyou. You've now cited proof that the object is there. This
isn't difficult to do.
The *difficult* thing to do, John, is to provide a reasonable working
theory that can explain why this object was never seen until 1966.
Why aren't you even attempting one?
Is this a totally new subject for you? Something that you've never
examined before? Need time to consider the problem?
>>>Otherwise, they are dealt with collectively: "roentgenograms of the
>>>skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along a line corresponding with
>>>a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-
>>>orbital ridge."
>>>
>>>Humes goes into a bit more detail later, telling the Warren Commission,
>>>
>>> "these [x-rays] had disclosed to us multiple minute fragments of
>>> radiopaque material traversing a line from the wound in the occiput
>>> to just above the right eye, with *a rather sizable fragment visible by
>>> X-ray just above the right eye*." [my emphasis]
>>
>>Yep... this was the 7x2 mm fragment... also visible in the Lateral
>>X-ray, thus pinpointing it as DIFFERENT than the 6.5mm virtually round
>>object, which is at the BACK OF THE HEAD in the Lateral X-ray.
This is apparently the paragraph you didn't read, when you implied
that I was not aware that this object appears in both the AP and the
Lateral.
Then perhaps you should learn to follow the previous conversation
before you jump in with meaningless statements.
Mitch Todd tried to argue that the object in the Rydberg drawing was
too low to be the 7x2mm object.
I point out that there IS NOTHING AT ALL in the X-rays at this lower
position.
>.John
Hijacking posts again, John?
GMcNally
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 03:22:38 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
> McAdams) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:28:23 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>This is just a repost of a message from several days ago. It seems
> >>that no LN wishes to discuss this subject when the evidence is laid
> >>out. So I'm just going to point it out again, for any lurkers who may
> >>be interested in proof of the government's involvement in framing LHO.
>
> Amusingly enough, the boss of the censored group has taken a shot at
> this... as everyone can see, he couldn't seem to do very much. I
> expected more from John.
>
>
>
> >>On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 17:26:49 GMT, "Mitch Todd"
> >><jere...@earthlink.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> My favorite question is why couldn't anyone see and describe the 6.5mm
> >>>> virtually round object in the AP X-ray until 1966. Was everyone at
> >>>> the autopsy blind? We have testimony that the search for a bullet was
> >>>> practically frantic, yet nobody noticed a 6.5mm virtually round object
> >>>> in the X-ray??? The prosectors evidently had no problem seeing
> >>>> objects far smaller on the X-ray...
> >>>
> >>>Why are you so sure that no one mentioned it?
> >>
> >>For the best of all reasons... nobody *did*.
> >>
> >>They were in a *frantic* search for a bullet, and here's an OBVIOUS
> >>bullet in the AP X-ray... yet they never mentioned it.
Ben,
> >Huh? There is no bullet in the x-ray.
>
> That's strange... both the Clark Panel and the HSCA stated that this
> 6.5mm virtually round object *WAS* a bullet fragment.
Could you quote them saying the image was "virtually round" and
exactly 6.5mm?
> Are you in disagreement with both the Clark Panel and the HSCA?
>
> Or are you nitpicking the leaving out of the obvious term "fragment"?
Not a nitpick: you said there was a bullet seen in the x-rays.
> Why not answer the question? You know very well that there was a
> virtually *frantic* search for a bullet during the autopsy.
I don't know if it was "virtually frantic" but Humes believed there
was a bullet - not a fragment, an entire bullet - somewhere inside
JFK's body.
But attempts to find by x-ray failed: there was no such bullet in the
body.
There's
> plenty of testimony describing the puzzlement at not finding one. Yet
> here is an *OBVIOUS* one, and not a single comment about it. What is
> your response to THIS rather difficult problem?
Humes had to check out the entire body to see if there was an intact
bullet in it - and Finck, especially, took the lead and had the body
x-rayed.
But, they found no bullet inside the body.
The explanation is simple: there was no bullet inside the body TO
FIND.
Not please show me that Clark/HSCA said the image was "virtually
round" and exactly 6.5mm in diameter.
Jerry
Ben Holmes
says...
Knowing, as I do, that you are *completely* aware of this already, I'm tempted
to refuse... but I know that there are lurkers who are interested in knowing the
truth, so I'll answer a question you already know the answer to.
"Also there is, embedded in the outer table of the skull close to the
lower edge of the hole, a large metallic fragment which on the
anteroposterior film (#1) lies 25 mm. to the right of the midline.
This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm
in diameter immediately adjacent to the hole on the internal surface
of the skull, there is localized elevation of the soft tissues."
(Clark Panel Report, pg 11)
"...is round and measures 6.5 mm in diameter" ... is this good enough for you,
Jerry?
Or do you believe that my addition of the qualifier "virtually" is inaccurate?
I'll be happy to change my description to a 6.5mm round object if you have no
objections... since this is EXACTLY what the Clark Panel inaccurately called it.
But... let's go on to the HSCA:
"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. reveals the defect referred to above
in the posterior parietal region. in it 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."
"...is round. The maximum diameter of the fragment measures 0.65 centimeter." -
if the Clark Panel was not good enough, will the HSCA satisfy you, Jerry?
Now, try to honestly tell everyone here, Jerry, that you didn't already *know*
that both the Clark Panel and the HSCA described this object on the X-rays in
the same terms that I did...
Now, while all of this rather *obvious* citation is interesting, let's not let
it detract from the REAL problem... to wit, that this object WAS NOT SEEN prior
to 1966. Come on, Jerry, let's see you apply your intellect to the real
problem... and not on forcing me to prove what you already know to be a fact.
>> Are you in disagreement with both the Clark Panel and the HSCA?
>>
>> Or are you nitpicking the leaving out of the obvious term "fragment"?
>
>Not a nitpick: you said there was a bullet seen in the x-rays.
Yep... nitpick. If this is the best that you and John can do, Jerry, it's a tad
on the pathetic side. Why are neither you nor John attempting to explain why
this object WAS NOT SEEN in 1963?
>> Why not answer the question? You know very well that there was a
>> virtually *frantic* search for a bullet during the autopsy.
>
>I don't know if it was "virtually frantic"
Then I suggest that you try reading the testimony and statements of those who
were there that night, Jerry. Here's a small sample:
"The initial films showed the usual metallic fragments in the skull but no
evidence of a slug, a bullet. This was a little bit disconcerting. We were asked
by the Secret Service agents present to repeat the films and did so Once again
there was no evidence of a bullet." - Ebersole HSCA deposition.
When you have Secret Service agents requesting additional X-rays (In an autopsy
that was supposedly under the complete control of Dr. Humes) then yes,
"virtually frantic" can be an accurate description.
"The pathologists kept searching for the missile which entered the right
shoulder, but could not locate it." - Boyers
"...repeatedly X-rayed because they felt there should be a bullet or something
there." - Jenkins
Mr. Jenkins said he has no information concerning the destruction of any film
during the autopsy. He says he does remember an incident which was possibly
that. He said it was "...a brief flare up." He said there were a lot of
incidences like that where people were curt" [sic] and specifically remembered
that the "...gallery was very impatient." They seemed to be "...mad about the
doctors not finding a bullet."
Jenkins recalls Humes discussing with someone the problem of finding the bullet.
He said this discussion amounted to a "disturbance."
"I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection with the
back wound and becoming frustrated during their search." - Sibert's signed
affidavit.
Now, Jerry, tell everyone that you were unaware of just how much effort was
expended to try to locate a bullet during the autopsy. And - as soon as you
tell us that, you can explain why no-one could see a 6.5mm round object in the
AP X-ray?
>but Humes believed there was a bullet - not a fragment, an entire bullet -
>somewhere inside JFK's body.
But somehow missed seeing a round 6.5mm object on the AP X-ray. Just how
incompetent was he, Jerry? And how did his incompetence spread to the other two
prosectors, Ebersole, and anyone else who looked at the X-ray?
>But attempts to find by x-ray failed: there was no such bullet in the
>body.
Who cares? Why would you try steering the debate to a non-existent bullet? Why
don't you discuss the 6.5mm virtually round object that WAS NOT SEEN in 1963,
yet existed from 1966 onward?
>> There's
>> plenty of testimony describing the puzzlement at not finding one. Yet
>> here is an *OBVIOUS* one, and not a single comment about it. What is
>> your response to THIS rather difficult problem?
>
>Humes had to check out the entire body to see if there was an intact
>bullet in it - and Finck, especially, took the lead and had the body
>x-rayed.
Actually, as I quoted from Ebersole above, the Secret Service *also* requested
additional X-rays.
>But, they found no bullet inside the body.
>
>The explanation is simple: there was no bullet inside the body TO
>FIND.
So? You aren't addressing the question. Why was this 6.5mm virtually round
object that the Clark Panel and the HSCA said was a bullet fragment, not seen in
1963?
This is PHYSICAL evidence, Jerry. Deal with it as such.
Do you agree with the Clark Panel and the HSCA that it represents a bullet
fragment?
Or perhaps you like the "Smart Drop" theory?
Or even the "Contact Lens" hypothesis?
Why didn't anyone see this object in 1963?
>Not please show me that Clark/HSCA said the image was "virtually
>round" and exactly 6.5mm in diameter.
Did so above. Now, tell everyone here *honestly* that you didn't know this
already. Can you do that - Jerry?
>Jerry
As normal, be sure to review the rest of the post to see the information that
Jerry was unable to rebut.
Mitch Todd
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
> This is just a repost of a message from several days ago. It seems
> that no LN wishes to discuss this subject when the evidence is laid
> out. So I'm just going to point it out again, for any lurkers who may
> be interested in proof of the government's involvement in framing LHO.
Hanging out on NGs is an avocation of mine; as such, posting gets only
whatever time and attention that I can spare. Usually, that means that I
have the time and patience to reply to a small percentage of the threads
I'd like to add my two cents to. Even my original reply on the 6.5mm
fragment issue is an abbreviated version of a reply to points made by
John Canal, cut, pasted, and truncated for pertinence. If you think that
I (or anyone else for that matter, CT or LN) must conform to your posting
schedule, you are greatly overestimating your importance in this universe.
You seem to feel fairly proud of your reply, proud enough to actually repost
it. You shouldn't be. Few people would repeatedly show off absurdities like,
"they were in a *frantic* search for a bullet, and here's an OBVIOUS bullet
in the AP X-ray... yet they never mentioned it." Mind you, your logic would
work if the 6.5mm object actually represented a bullet, as your statement
has it. Unfortunately, the object represents nothing of the sort, as you
have admitted every time that you have labeled it as a "fragment" (or perhaps
"alleged fragment" would better encapsulate your opinion). There is no
question that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were trying to find a bullet on the
night of the autopsy, but the mystery bullet happened to be one that caused
the back wound. They weren't looking for it in the skull; another bullet
already accounted for the skull fragments.
Now, back to the issue at hand.
The autopsy report mentions the fragments tersely and collectively:
"roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along a
line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound
and the right supra-orbital ridge." The mention of the supraorbital ridge, the
outcrop of bone immediately above the eye upon which your eyebrows perch,
is significant for reasons that will soon become clear. In his testimony to the
Warren Commission, Humes provides a slightly more detailed description,
noting that
"these [x-rays] had disclosed to us multiple minute fragments of
radiopaque material traversing a line from the wound in the occiput
to just above the right eye, with a rather sizable fragment visible by
X-ray just above the right eye."
A bit further on in Humes' deposition, he invokes Rydberg's lateral drawing:
"a second portion of the missile or multiple second portions were
deflected, and traversed a distance as enumerated by this interrupted
line, with the major portion of that fragment coming to lodge in the
position indicated [with the labeled 'fragment' on the drawing]."
It should be noted that the Rydberg diagram puts the large fragment directly
behind the supraorbital ridge, exactly where the autopsy report placed the
end of the fragment trail. There is no question, then, that the large fragment
described by Humes was immediately above the eye. This poses a problem
for those who posit that the large fragment is the the bent shape seen in the
AP x-ray 4-5 cm above the top of the right orbit. That's 1.75"-2", not the
half-inch that you've erroniously asserted. The bent fragment is much too far
above the orbit to be associated with the supraorbital ridge. At the same time,
the 6.5mm image coincides with the top of the right orbital rim in the AP
x-ray. It's obvious that, in the AP x-ray at least, the 6.5mm object must be
the large fragment mentioned by Humes.
However, this conclusion leads to a problem. The many physicians who
have later studied the x-rays have come to an almost unanimous conclusion
that the 6.5mm object is located at the rear of the skull. Did the autopsists
misread the x-rays, and, if so, why?
There is no question that physicians make mistakes reading x-rays. For
instance, Dr Thomas Shires, who repaired the ugly laceration in John
Connally's thigh, felt that a fragment had been driven deep into the Texas
Governor's left femur. Later review of the x-rays revealed that Shires had
been wrong. The doctor had mistakenly connected a spurious artifact in
one view with the image of the fragment in another. In reality, the fragment
lies just beneath the skin.
The autopsy report mentions that "There is edema and ecchymosis diffusely
over the right supra-orbital ridge with abnormal mobility of the underlying
bone." This "abnormal mobility" can mean only one thing: a piece of the
upper right orbit had broken away from the surrounding skull. The AP
x-ray shows this damage clearly, a roughly triangular fragment of displaced
bone at the top of the right orbit. Superimposed on this bone fragment is
the crescent shape of the 6.5mm object. This curious coincidence strongly
suggests that the autopsists saw the superimposed images on the x-ray
and assumed that the fragment had itself caused the bony damage to the
top of the eye socket.
As for the complaint that the lateral x-ray does not show a fragment where
the Rydberg drawing indicates, you might want to have a second look.
In this x-ray, there is a V-shaped feature behind the eye socket, with the
point of the V facing towards the rear. Adjacent to the V, slightly forward
and above the V's tip, is an image that could be construed to be a
bullet fragment that is large enough to possibly be connected to the 6.5mm
object seen in the AP view. This particular object is remarkably close to
the location of the large fragment given in the Rydberg drawing. Interestingly,
this object has a pencil line drawn through it which extends all the way to
the rear of the skull, rather line the dotted trajectory line in the Rydberg
diagram. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Also, I'm intrigued by how the autopsy report describes the location of the
two recovered fragments. The exact location where these fragmets were
found is not mentioned in the report. It only mentions that they were removed
"from the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex." That could be the
front, back, top, or right side of the brain. So where was it? At the very least,
HB&F could have told us which lobe (ie, occipital, frontal, parietal, temporal)
of the right cerebral hemisphere held the fragments. Did they not care about
telling anyone, or did the recovered fragments appear in location that they
didn't expect?
MST
> IN FACT LOCATED THIS SMALL FRAGMENT, [emphasis added]
> ******************************************************
GMcNally
Ben,
> Who cares? Why would you try steering the debate to a non-existent bullet? Why don't you discuss the 6.5mm virtually round object that WAS NOT SEEN in 1963, yet existed from 1966 onward?
It was not seen on the night of 11/22/63 because the Kennedy family
had their toady, Burkley, harass the autopsists with shouted
admonitions that the family
thought the autopsy was taking too long and so they'd better hurry up
so the family could take the body back to the White House, etc. etc.
In fact Cdr Humes testified that he didn't look at the x-rays during
the autopsy. He delegated that to Ebersole.
Still, he might have had a look if the Kennedys hadn't rushed the
autopsy.
Further, had the Kennedy family allowed the autopsists to view the
films before testifying -- instead of denying their request -- then
they would have seen in 1963 what they saw in 1966. But the Kennedys
had control - so nobody could view the materials without a nod from
them.
In sum, Ben, you cannot establish that the opacity was not on the
x-rays in 1963.
Nor can you make any kind of case that adding one later made any kind
of sense at all or served or would have served any purpose.
The Photo Panel determined that the x-rays were of JFK and they had
not been altered - either composited, masked, added to or subtracted
from. In any way.
So if somebody had done what you suggest they did their actions would
not have gone undetected.
And since alteration was not detected and since it would serve no
purpose in adding the opacity you have no sort of case whatsoever. Not
that you even begin to address the who-where-when-how questions.
Jerry
\
Ben Holmes
Wonder why Jerry didn't feel it necessary to respond here? Could he
have *really* been unaware that both the Clark Panel and HSCA
described this object as I did?
>> Now, while all of this rather *obvious* citation is interesting, let's not let
>> it detract from the REAL problem... to wit, that this object WAS NOT SEEN prior
>> to 1966. Come on, Jerry, let's see you apply your intellect to the real
>> problem... and not on forcing me to prove what you already know to be a fact.
>>
>>
>> >> Are you in disagreement with both the Clark Panel and the HSCA?
>> >>
>> >> Or are you nitpicking the leaving out of the obvious term "fragment"?
>> >
>> >Not a nitpick: you said there was a bullet seen in the x-rays.
>>
>> Yep... nitpick. If this is the best that you and John can do, Jerry, it's a tad
>> on the pathetic side. Why are neither you nor John attempting to explain why
>> this object WAS NOT SEEN in 1963?
Another unanswered question... and the most important one. I wonder
why neither John nor Jerry have attempted to answer this one?
Again... Jerry is willing to argue that the doctors were not
"virtually frantic" in their search for a bullet - but when it comes
time to actually respond to the actual statements - he turns silent.
Wonder why?
>> >but Humes believed there was a bullet - not a fragment, an entire bullet -
>> >somewhere inside JFK's body.
>>
>> But somehow missed seeing a round 6.5mm object on the AP X-ray. Just how
>> incompetent was he, Jerry? And how did his incompetence spread to the other two
>> prosectors, Ebersole, and anyone else who looked at the X-ray?
>>
>> >But attempts to find by x-ray failed: there was no such bullet in the
>> >body.
>
>Ben,
Before we get to what you wish to comment on, it seems that you no
longer merely respond to the first half of a post... now your skipping
the first half, responding to a small section, and skipping the last
half.
Everyone - be sure to take a look at what Jerry was UNABLE to respond
to.
>> Who cares? Why would you try steering the debate to a non-existent
>> bullet? Why don't you discuss the 6.5mm virtually round object that
>> WAS NOT SEEN in 1963, yet existed from 1966 onward?
>
>It was not seen on the night of 11/22/63 because the Kennedy family
>had their toady, Burkley, harass the autopsists with shouted
>admonitions that the family thought the autopsy was taking too long
>and so they'd better hurry up so the family could take the body back
>to the White House, etc. etc.
Hmmm... sounds like another "Kennedy did it" sort of excuse. So what
we're left with, is that Dr. Humes was in charge, and conducted the
autopsy he wanted... UNLESS it's the next day, when you'll argue that
the Kennedy clan was the "big bad wolf" that controlled everything and
prevented everything that was prevented (except when it comes to
dissecting the track of the bullet through the neck)
To be honest, this argument that doctors could not see the LARGEST
fragment on the X-rays, even though they spotted far smaller ones with
no apparent problems, because of Kennedy interference is your most
pathetic argument yet. Are you really serious? Or are you just
trying one after another to see if there's anything that I can't
rebut?
>In fact Cdr Humes testified that he didn't look at the x-rays during
>the autopsy. He delegated that to Ebersole.
This is simply an outright lie. During the ARRB deposition, for
example, Dr. Humes testifies in a manner which makes clear that he'd
seen the X-rays on the night of the autopsy.
It's sad when you have to resort to outright lies of this nature to
try to make a point. What good is the point if it's upheld by lies?
>Still, he might have had a look if the Kennedys hadn't rushed the
>autopsy.
I challenge you, Jerry, to provide the QUOTE of Dr. Humes stating that
he "didn't look at the x-rays during the autopsy".
>Further, had the Kennedy family allowed
You STILL haven't cited for this contention. You're well aware of the
fact that it was the Secret Service who had physical control of the
photos and X-rays.
>the autopsists to view the
>films before testifying -- instead of denying their request -- then
>they would have seen in 1963 what they saw in 1966.
Pure conjecture.
This 6.5mm virtually round object is the most glaringly obvious object
ON the AP X-ray. It's simply not possible for them to have missed it,
while still seeing and locating two far smaller objects.
How do you explain that?
Do you imagine that this "Kennedy interference" only affected their
ability to see the largest object? LOL!!
You really need to think your arguments through before you make them,
Jerry.
>But the Kennedys had control
If you cannot cite for this assertion of yours, I'm going to start
calling it for what it is. And try to keep it to the 1963/64
timeframe.
It would be interesting if you could also explain the legalities here.
As I'm sure you're well aware that the Kennedy clan had NO rights to
the autopsy photos or X-rays.
> - so nobody could view the materials without a nod from them.
>
>In sum, Ben, you cannot establish that the opacity was not on the
>x-rays in 1963.
Sure I can. I *have* as a matter of fact. You still haven't
seriously *dealt* with the question.
>Nor can you make any kind of case that adding one later made any kind
>of sense at all or served or would have served any purpose.
Well... I was wrong. I thought you'd already *made* the most pathetic
point possible.
>The Photo Panel determined that the x-rays were of JFK and they had
>not been altered - either composited, masked, added to or subtracted
>from. In any way.
And what was *their* explanation for the fact that this object was
never seen and described prior to 1966? Surely they must have
explained it...
If they didn't, then they didn't do what you think they did.
>So if somebody had done what you suggest they did their actions would
>not have gone undetected.
It didn't. As the fact that you can't explain it demonstrates.
>And since alteration was not detected and since it would serve no
>purpose in adding the opacity you have no sort of case whatsoever.
"the opacity"??
Are you seriously in disagreement with the Clark Panel and the HSCA -
both of whom labeled it a bullet fragment?
As for there being no purpose in adding it - this is merely a
demonstration of your stupidity.
I doubt that anyone who's not a die-hard LN'er would rather quickly
grasp the advantage that a prosecution would have in possessing an
X-ray that demonstrates the killing shot to have been by the same size
bullet that the accused is alleged to have fired.
The fact that this was never brought forth by the WC doesn't
invalidate it - merely points to poor planning.
>Not that you even begin to address the who-where-when-how questions.
Don't have to. When it's raining, one rarely tries to argue that
there are no clouds overhead.
If I demonstrate that there's an object on an X-ray that didn't
originally exist, I don't *HAVE* to prove who-where-when or how... the
mere existence of this object proves a frameup.
>Jerry
I don't suppose you'd care to explain why you're not responding point
by point?
Is it perhaps that you have no rebuttal to make? Lurkers - take note
both above and everything below to see what Jerry couldn't respond to.
Ben Holmes
<jere...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>
>> This is just a repost of a message from several days ago. It seems
>> that no LN wishes to discuss this subject when the evidence is laid
>> out. So I'm just going to point it out again, for any lurkers who may
>> be interested in proof of the government's involvement in framing LHO.
>
>Hanging out on NGs is an avocation of mine; as such, posting gets only
>whatever time and attention that I can spare. Usually, that means that I
>have the time and patience to reply to a small percentage of the threads
>I'd like to add my two cents to. Even my original reply on the 6.5mm
>fragment issue is an abbreviated version of a reply to points made by
>John Canal, cut, pasted, and truncated for pertinence. If you think that
>I (or anyone else for that matter, CT or LN) must conform to your posting
>schedule, you are greatly overestimating your importance in this universe.
Then it's fortunate that by reposting, I managed to get some more LN
replies, isn't it?
>You seem to feel fairly proud of your reply, proud enough to actually repost
>it. You shouldn't be.
That's okay. I don't expect a LN'er to be able to accurately judge
what would make a CT'er "proud of".
>Few people would repeatedly show off absurdities like,
>"they were in a *frantic* search for a bullet,
Then feel free to respond to the post to Jerry, where I cited a number
of statements to make that point.
It's simply a FACT that they were doing exactly that. Trying to argue
that their concentration was *not* on locating a bullet is merely to
misrepresent the evidence. And I know you wouldn't want to do that.
Instead of trying to argue that "few people would repeatedly show off
absurdities".. why not actually *rebut* those "absurdities"? Or is it
beyond your skill?
>and here's an OBVIOUS bullet in the AP X-ray... yet they never mentioned it."
>Mind you, your logic would
>work if the 6.5mm object actually represented a bullet, as your statement
>has it. Unfortunately, the object represents nothing of the sort,
"Nothing of the sort"?
So you disagree with both the Clark Panel and the HSCA, both of whom
stated that this 6.5mm round object represents a bullet fragment?
>as you have admitted every time that you have labeled it as a "fragment"
I have no problem "admitting" that it is apparently a "fragment".
That's what the Clark Panel and HSCA called it. Did *they* "admit"
that it was a bullet fragment?
>(or perhaps "alleged fragment" would better encapsulate your opinion).
Yep. I don't believe it represents a bullet fragment. Nor does any
ballistics expert.
Nor does anyone who accepts my evidence that this object was never
seen the night of the autopsy - making it certainly an *addition* to
the X-ray. (Or, more accurately, a composite)
>There is no question that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were trying to find
>a bullet on the night of the autopsy,
Why thank you! It's nice to have someone actually acknowledge this.
All the LN'ers seem intent on covering up this inconvenient fact.
So evidently - it was merely not a "frantic" search for the bullet.
Leisurely, perhaps? Or perhaps merely "doggedly"?
>but the mystery bullet happened to be one that caused
>the back wound. They weren't looking for it in the skull; another bullet
>already accounted for the skull fragments.
LOL!! The effort they went through with the body X-rays were just as
equally matched with the skull X-rays. The whole autopsy was marked
by a xxxxxxxxxxx search for bullets. (descriptive phrases removed)
>Now, back to the issue at hand.
>
>The autopsy report mentions the fragments tersely and collectively:
>"roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along a
>line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound
>and the right supra-orbital ridge." The mention of the supraorbital ridge, the
>outcrop of bone immediately above the eye upon which your eyebrows perch,
>is significant for reasons that will soon become clear. In his testimony to the
>Warren Commission, Humes provides a slightly more detailed description,
>noting that
>
> "these [x-rays] had disclosed to us multiple minute fragments of
> radiopaque material traversing a line from the wound in the occiput
> to just above the right eye, with a rather sizable fragment visible by
> X-ray just above the right eye."
>
>A bit further on in Humes' deposition, he invokes Rydberg's lateral drawing:
>
> "a second portion of the missile or multiple second portions were
> deflected, and traversed a distance as enumerated by this interrupted
> line, with the major portion of that fragment coming to lodge in the
> position indicated [with the labeled 'fragment' on the drawing]."
>
>It should be noted that the Rydberg diagram puts the large fragment directly
>behind the supraorbital ridge, exactly where the autopsy report placed the
>end of the fragment trail. There is no question, then, that the large fragment
>described by Humes was immediately above the eye. This poses a problem
No it doesn't. Attempting to use a *drawing* to argue with the X-rays
is just silly. Certainly no court would allow you to attempt to rebut
the X-ray with a drawing.
>for those who posit that the large fragment is the the bent shape seen in the
>AP x-ray 4-5 cm above the top of the right orbit. That's 1.75"-2", not the
>half-inch that you've erroniously asserted. The bent fragment is much too far
>above the orbit to be associated with the supraorbital ridge. At the same time,
>the 6.5mm image coincides with the top of the right orbital rim in the AP
>x-ray. It's obvious that, in the AP x-ray at least, the 6.5mm object must be
>the large fragment mentioned by Humes.
No, it's NOT obvious. I've already covered this below. Why don't you
answer it?
Do you think that by merely re-asserting this over and over again, and
not responding to my rebuttal, that you're going to convince anyone?
As I've already pointed out below, and UNANSWERED by you - is that the
AP X-ray clearly shows the 7x2mm fragment AND the 6.5mm object. You
cannot make the argument that Dr. Humes saw both objects, and merely
decided not to go after one of them.
And, I pointed out that the 6.5mm object was at the back of the head,
not behind the right eye, as the other two fragments were.
>However, this conclusion leads to a problem. The many physicians who
>have later studied the x-rays have come to an almost unanimous conclusion
>that the 6.5mm object is located at the rear of the skull. Did the autopsists
>misread the x-rays, and, if so, why?
No, this question presupposes that Dr. Humes saw all three objects,
and decided to only remove two of them. This is merely silly.
All three objects *are* viewable on the AP X-ray. Trying to merge two
of them into one is simply not good enough.
>There is no question that physicians make mistakes reading x-rays.
I invite anyone who's not seen the AP X-ray yet to take a look, and
see if this 6.5mm virtually round object didn't stand out rather
glaringly.
The fact that nobody bothered to mention a virtually round object is
just going beyond what reasonable people can accept.
>For instance, Dr Thomas Shires, who repaired the ugly laceration in John
>Connally's thigh, felt that a fragment had been driven deep into the Texas
>Governor's left femur. Later review of the x-rays revealed that Shires had
>been wrong. The doctor had mistakenly connected a spurious artifact in
>one view with the image of the fragment in another. In reality, the fragment
>lies just beneath the skin.
So you're down to arguing incompetence.
Not much of an argument...
>The autopsy report mentions that "There is edema and ecchymosis diffusely
>over the right supra-orbital ridge with abnormal mobility of the underlying
>bone." This "abnormal mobility" can mean only one thing: a piece of the
>upper right orbit had broken away from the surrounding skull. The AP
>x-ray shows this damage clearly, a roughly triangular fragment of displaced
>bone at the top of the right orbit. Superimposed on this bone fragment is
>the crescent shape of the 6.5mm object. This curious coincidence strongly
>suggests that the autopsists saw the superimposed images on the x-ray
>and assumed that the fragment had itself caused the bony damage to the
>top of the eye socket.
You are *still* trying to merge two separate visible fragments on the
X-ray.
Your argument would be convincing if the 7x2mm fragment were *NOT*
visible on the X-ray. Why don't you address this?
>As for the complaint that the lateral x-ray does not show a fragment where
>the Rydberg drawing indicates,
Actually, since I've already pointed out that your argument revolves
around having the 7x2mm fragment *not* appear, I have little interest
in the Rydberg drawing.
>you might want to have a second look.
>In this x-ray, there is a V-shaped feature behind the eye socket, with the
>point of the V facing towards the rear. Adjacent to the V, slightly forward
>and above the V's tip, is an image that could be construed to be a
>bullet fragment that is large enough to possibly be connected to the 6.5mm
>object seen in the AP view. This particular object is remarkably close to
>the location of the large fragment given in the Rydberg drawing. Interestingly,
>this object has a pencil line drawn through it which extends all the way to
>the rear of the skull, rather line the dotted trajectory line in the Rydberg
>diagram. Coincidence? I don't think so.
I think that anyone forced to using a drawing to make a point when the
primary evidence is available just demonstrates the weakness of his
case. You're attempting to use a drawing to argue with an X-ray.
>Also, I'm intrigued by how the autopsy report describes the location of the
>two recovered fragments. The exact location where these fragmets were
>found is not mentioned in the report. It only mentions that they were removed
>"from the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex." That could be the
>front, back, top, or right side of the brain. So where was it?
Dr. Humes' testimony makes it quite clear:
Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing
there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the
President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's
eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and
in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the
brain tissue in just precisely this location.
Mr. SPECTER - How large was that fragment, Dr. Humes?
Commander HUMES - I refer to my notes for the measurements of that
fragment.
I find in going back to my report, sir, that we found, in fact, two
small fragments in this approximate location. The larger of these
measured 7 by 2 mm., the smaller 3 by 1 mm.
>At the very least,
>HB&F could have told us which lobe (ie, occipital, frontal, parietal, temporal)
>of the right cerebral hemisphere held the fragments. Did they not care about
>telling anyone, or did the recovered fragments appear in location that they
>didn't expect?
How could you make that argument? Haven't you read Dr. Humes'
testimony? As he testifies, they were found "in just precisely this
location". Exactly where he thought they were, according to the
X-rays...
>MST
Take your time, next time, and respond to ALL of my post. It's rather
boring to repeat a rebuttal that exists IN THE SAME POST.
And lurkers will be hardly impressed that you were unable to respond
to them.