+- Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com)
+-- Forum: Main JFK Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-Main-JFK-Forums)
+--- Forum: JFK Conspiracy Main Forum (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-JFK-Conspiracy-Main-Forum)
+--- Thread: That Pesky 6.5mm Virtually Round Object... (/Thread-That-Pesky-6-5mm-Virtually-Round-Object)
That Pesky 6.5mm Virtually Round Object... - Ben Holmes - 06-20-2016
One of the most interesting, IMO, aspects of the evidence in the JFK case is the mysterious 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP Xray. There are two Xrays that are of interest here, the 'enhanced', and the 'un-enhanced' (or original) Xray. I'll refer to both, as the situation requires... if you haven't seen the 6.5mm virtually round object, please click here to take a look at the enhanced AP X-ray:
![[Image: HSCA_Baden_F-56.png]](http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/HSCA_Baden_F-56.png)
Now... what makes this 6.5mm virtually round object so mysterious and interesting?
First, the diameter. It is just "coincidentally" the same size as the ammunition the WC states was used to assassinate JFK. One person attempted the argument that this 6.5mm virtually round object really isn't 6.5mm in diameter - since Xrays are not to scale. This argument presumes that all the official investigations were also ignorant of this fact.
Now, although some people have made suggestions that this 6.5mm virtually round object represents something other than a bullet fragment, none of the official investigations have ever referred to it as *other* than a bullet fragment. So, the very "best" experts on this subject, that the government has been able to put together, have all stated that this is a bullet fragment.
Why is this "bullet fragment" mysterious? For the simple reason that it was never seen (or, to be absolutely accurate, never described) prior to 1968... it managed to hide itself from all three autopsy doctors, and at least one radiologist. Amazing bullet fragment, wouldn't you say?
Even more amazing given the intensity with which the autopsy team was attempting to locate any bullet fragments. Dr. Humes was completely unable to spot this huge 6.5mm virtually round object, even though he had no apparent problem located far smaller fragments.
One person even offered the opinion that perhaps Dr. Humes had forgotten this 6.5mm virtually round object by the following day... after all, he did his report without the benefit of the Xrays...
Unfortunately for this idea, Dr. Humes had no apparent problems remembering two much smaller fragments.
Some people will attempt the argument that it was seen and described... unfortunately, they will try to argue that the 6.5mm virtually round object that is clearly at the back of the head is the same as the 7x2mm object described by Dr. Humes as being recovered from "above and somewhat behind" JFK's right eye.
This 7x2mm object can be seen - AS WELL AS the 6.5mm virtually round object, in the un-enhanced AP Xray. Take a look above JFK's right eye to see the 7x2mm object. (Note: This is the actual X-ray that the prosectors would have been looking at during the autopsy)
![[Image: HSCA_Baden_F-55.png]](http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/HSCA_Baden_F-55.png)
When we get to the issue of the size of this object, a simple bit of math can be instructive. Since no-one corrected me the last time I tried this bit of math, I'll assume it's correct enough to re-quote it here:
Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, just a quick note about the relative sizes here. My school geometry is mostly forgotten, but the area of an object I can probably still figure out... And since these fragments are irregularly shaped, this is quite imprecise, but may prove surprising:John McAdams, when he deals with this subject at all, is forced to argue strawmen... take, for example, this repost:
Area of a rectangle - Length times height.
Area of a circle - pi times radius squared
3x1 mm = 3 x 1 = 3
7x2 mm = 7 x 2 = 14
6.5 mm = 3.14 x (3.25 squared) = 3.14 x 10.56 = 33.16
Granted that these are only rough approximations, the 6.5mm object was roughly twice the size of the largest fragment that Dr. Humes thought existed. And it was 10 times the size of the smaller fragment that Dr. Humes apparently had no problem discerning on the xrays.
John McAdams Wrote:I don't think I need to point out the change of wording from "size" to "mass", do I?? And surely, this is a 'convenient' switch of words...Ben Holmes Wrote: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.
I find it hard to believe that a college professor is *that* sloppy with word usage. So even John, defender of the faith, is forced to ignore the issue.
The mysterious 6.5mm virtually round object... that wasn't there the night of the autopsy, wasn't seen and described until 1968. The object that LN'ers have no explanation for.
And perhaps the most obvious demonstration of a misguided government frameup attempt. Or does someone have a more reasonable explanation?