Quote:
3) No one would ever radiograph a dead deer unless they are looking to see the fragmentation pattern. Bullet manufacturers typically use gelatin to demonstrate performance. Whoever took this one was definitely trying to show the fragmentation pattern because it's useless for anything else. The manipulation of the exposure to maximize the appearance of the fragmentation causes one to question the motives of the one who took it, simply because it does not follow normal radiographic technique. It COULD still be unbiased, but there's ample evidence that it could also very easily be biased to demonstrate a pre-determined conclusion. It would be much more legitimate if it followed standard radiographic technique, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive (i.e. intentional underexposure makes the tiniest fragments show up brighter and more vivid/"impressive", while all anatomic detail is lost in a "white-out").


While this is true, a radiograph is taken to show the structure of interest. That does not make it biased. The structures of interest were not bones or guts, but small metallic particles. Now of course the animal may have been "salted" in which case it's outright fraud, but if we are looking for a femur fracture we use the proper voltage and exposure for that purpose.

The degree of fragmentation in that radiograph is enormous - I wonder how common that is. It is also curious how far within the tissue mass some of the smaller fragments must have traveled. These tiny particles must have had a lot of energy! It is these issues that concern me more than the exposure of the plate.