Indeed, during his testimony, Dr. Humes only referenced a 7x2mm and a
3x1mm fragment as the two largest bullet fragments seen during the
autopsy.

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.

This is simply not possible. **ANYONE** can now look at the same X-ray
that Dr. Humes was looking at to locate these fragments (see link
below for un-enhanced X-ray). And not surprisingly, no believer has
dared to offer a credible explanation for this strange blindness on
the part of the prosectors and radiologist.

The infamous defender of the faith, McAdams - simply lied and ran when
this topic came up - and has refused ever since to post in this forum.
He knows he cannot debate this topic with knowledgeable critics.
McAdams couldn't bring himself to publicly acknowledge that the 6.5mm
object is the LARGEST foreign object seen in the X-rays... because the
moment he admits that, he's faced with the fact that the prosectors
must have been blind.

Here's one of the exchanges that took place... Beginning with McAdams: ****************************

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.
**************************** https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_zKllCkacOg/tjUHulYg_igJ

McAdams ran from this post, and has *NEVER* answered it. He ran back
to the newsgroup that he censors, safe from the facts I pointed out.

And if McAdams can't answer this topic, who from the side of believers
*can*?

CERTAINLY NOT HUCKSTER SIENZANT! (WHO WILL RUN FROM THIS POST!)

Most people have been a tad mislead by the X-rays generally available
- because they are inevitably the "enhanced" version - not available
to the prosectors. The enhanced X-ray obscures just how obvious this
6.5mm object actually appeared. Just to demonstrate how blind the
prosectors must have been - take a look at the SAME X-ray that they
would have been looking at: http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/HSCA_Baden_F-55.png

So what does this all mean? It means that the only credible
explanation *EVER* offered for the existence of this object is that it
was *added* to the existing X-rays. Quite easily done with with the
type of film used in 1963, as Dr. Mantik has already pointed out. (And demonstrated!) The alternative is to believe that it was seen, but
never mentioned until years later... or that the prosectors were
simply blind.

Watch as Huckster runs away...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)