Post by Herbert Blenner on Feb 15, 2019 9:47:38 GMT -5
Objection to the 0.65-cm Fragment
by Herbert Blenner Posted April 11, 2015
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
(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.
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.
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 separates 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.
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.
by Herbert Blenner Posted April 11, 2015
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
(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.
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.
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 separates 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.
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.