Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Pat Speer

Moderators
  • Content count

    5,669
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Pat Speer

  1. JFK X-RAY - Where is rear bullet entry point?

    Methinks the emperor has no clothes. Mantik accuses me of an "ad hominem" attack. I merely pointed out that he either misled his strongest supporters about the nature of the "white spot", or sat back quietly while they misled others. This is not a personal attack on my part. It is a true and salient observation. If people are gonna cite Mantik's research on this forum, they should realize that what people claim of Mantik is often at odds with what Mantik actually believes. They should also realize that Mantik is inconsistent, at best. Single-assassin theorist Robert Wagner, for example, cited Mantik's one-time claim there's no evidence for a shot from the knoll. He didn't realize that Mantik now claims there is such evidence. In any event, Mantik responded by claiming Wagner's book should be banned. As far as the 20 questions for me pushed by Mantik... the vast majority of these are answered on my website, and have been answered on my website for years...well before Mantik "reviewed" my website for CTKA. (A "review" to which Jim "in the interest of fairness" DiEugenio refused to allow a response, BTW). In any event, I don't see any point in taking the bait and allowing my original observation to get buried.
  2. JFK X-RAY - Where is rear bullet entry point?

    I find the black spot interesting, but really doubt it was a bullet hole. If it was, it seems certain someone at Parkland and Bethesda would have noticed it, IMO. Could it be torn scalp related to the large head wound? Could it be a small wound created by the break-up of the bullet at the supposed exit?
  3. JFK X-RAY - Where is rear bullet entry point?

    Father Huber's mention of a wound over the left eye is not very credible, IMO. From chapter 18d at patspeer.com: The November 24th, 1963, Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin ran an article datelined Dallas, Nov. 23rd, 1963. Father Huber was interviewed for this article. It reported: “The President was lying on a rubber-tired table when I came in,” Father Huber said. He was standing at his head. Father Huber said the President was covered by a white sheet which hid his face, but not his feet. “His feet were bare,” said Father Huber... He said he wet his right thumb with holy oil and anointed a Cross over the President’s forehead, noticing as he did, a “terrible wound” over his left eye." A "terrible" wound over his left eye! No such wound was noticed by the Parkland doctors. It seems possible then that Father Huber had confused Kennedy's left for his right, and that Huber had in fact noticed the wound depicted in the autopsy photos while at Parkland. Or not. A few years later, while interviewing Father Huber for his movie Rush to Judgment, Mark Lane asked Father Huber about this wound. (The transcript to this interview was made available by the Wisconsin Historical Society.) Ironically, Huber told Lane "Well, his face was covered with blood and there was a blotch of blood on the left forehead, which I, at the time, thought possibly could be a bullet wound, but I learned later that it was not, that I was entirely mistaken, because he had been shot in the back of the head. I did not see really any wounds on him, because I only uncovered his face to the tip of his nose. I learned later that the bullet came out, perhaps at the jaw, I don't know." And that wasn't the last time Father Huber spoke on the matter. In late 1966, Lawrence Schiller followed up with many of those who'd been interviewed by Lane. In his book The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report, Schiller quoted Huber as follows: "I saw the President lying on an emergency room table...I noticed that his extremities were extremely white, and the thought came to me: 'There's no blood in this man...' I removed the sheet down to the tip of his nose and anointed him with holy oils...And [then I] put the sheet back over his face. I did not know where he had been shot, where the bullets had struck him and I had no thought of looking for anything like that. His face was covered in blood, but I saw no wounds."
  4. My theory on who fired the fatal shot

    I had a chat with Mary Moorman this past November in Dallas. I told her that much of the "research community" thought she was a hottie in 1963. I joked that she was kind of like a "pin-up girl" for assassination researchers. Another participant in the conversation joked that someone should put out a calendar "The Women of Dealey Plaza", with the best shots of Moorman, Hill, Marina Oswald and others, perhaps including some of Jack Ruby's dancers. She and her family got a big kick out of it. Jean Hill and Mary Moorman's comments after the shooting helped fuel the birth of the assassination research community. They were not part of the conspiracy.
  5. JFK X-RAY - Where is rear bullet entry point?

    FWIW, Mantik's response to my post supports the worst conclusion one could take from my post---that he'd concluded that the "white patch" on the lateral x-rays did not overlay a supposed "blow-out" wound at the right rear of Kennedy's skull, but said nothing while his biggest supporters made this claim over and over and over again in books, articles and presentations with many times the reach of Mantik's subsequent volumes, in which he finally admitted I was correct, and that his biggest supporters had been misleading their readers and listeners. P.S. Here are Mantik's first published comments on the "white patch"... "What someone did in taking the x-rays of Kennedy during the autopsy was to put a great white patch on the back of the lateral X-ray to cover up the hole, which is why the area is so extraordinarily white," (Source: Reuters news Article on the 11-18-93 press conference, published in Livingstone's book Killing Kennedy, published 1995.) He said the white patch covered up a hole. Now he's trying to claim the white patch covered up that there was missing brain at the back of the head, and that the hole on the skull itself was actually at the far back of the x-ray and not apparent to the eye. Oh wait, that's right. I'm supposed to feel guilty for accurately reporting what's been said, and how what's been said has misled the vast majority of those studying the medical evidence. My bad.
  6. What does "trusted relationship" mean, anyways? There is nothing in that article to indicate Lane was knowingly working with or talking to the KGB. If anything, it suggests the Russians were keeping their eye on Lane. This only makes sense, seeing as Lane was at the forefront of a movement seen as a direct threat to the Johnson Administration and CIA.
  7. JFK X-RAY - Where is rear bullet entry point?

    Greetings, Keyvan. Chapters 18 and 18b at patspeer.com examine the x-rays and refute a lot of the crap barfed up by agenda-pushers on both sides of the fence. While Dr. Mantik is both eloquent and educated, he has been wrong about most of his public positions (e.g. the Z-film being faked via the removal of frames to hide in part that the limo stopped) and his position on the x-rays is no different. I discuss his claims off and on in Chapters 18 and 18b, and devote the latter part of chapter 18e to a more detailed explanation of our disagreements. Here is a sample from chapter 18e. Let us now demonstrate the fatal folly of following false messiahs. (White this is undoubtedly unfair, I couldn't resist the alliteration.) Here is Harrison Livingstone in the October-November 1993 issue of The Investigator, discussing Mantik's first trip to the archives: "Dr. Mantik found that the large hole on the right side in the back of the head described in the autopsy report and by the Dallas medical witnesses was covered up in the X-rays." And here is Mantik himself at a Livingstone-put-together press conference days later: "What someone did in taking the x-rays of Kennedy during the autopsy was to put a great white patch on the back of the lateral X-ray to cover up the hole, which is why the area is so extraordinarily white," (Source: Reuters news Article on the 11-18-93 press conference, published in Livingstone's book Killing Kennedy, published 1995.) And, should one assume the writer of this article, Jeanne King, to have misreported Mantik's words, here is an AP report by Richard Pyle, on this same news conference, which was similarly republished by Livingstone in 1995: "Dr. David Mantik, a radiologist from Rancho Mirage, Calif., said he recently conducted 'optical density' tests on the photos in the National Archives, finding that they were 'composites' that blocked out the large exit wound and positioned a bullet fragment to suggest a shot from the rear." And here is Dr. Randy Robertson in a 2-4-94 letter to Jim Lesar found in the Weisberg Archives: "David also has said that the "big white patch"was put on the back of the skull x-ray to hide the large area of bone that was missing there because a bullet exited out the back of the head." And here is Mantik himself in a 4-10-94 letter to researcher Harold Weisberg found in the Weisberg Archives: "The primary question now is -- and always should have been: why is there no obvious missing tissue at the back of the head? What we see instead on the lateral X-ray is a remarkably white area, where it should appear relatively dark, secondary to significant missing tissue." Mantik's claim the x-rays were altered to hide a hole in the back of the head thereby became big news, at least in the eyes of the research community. Here is Livingstone again in Killing Kennedy (1995), which devoted an entire chapter to Mantik and his findings: "Dr. Mantik found beyond any question that the x-rays are altered images intended to hide the position of the large defect as described in the autopsy report itself...We can see the unusual whiteness on this area of the x-rays with the naked eye." And here he is later in the book: "the rear part of the hole described by all witnesses is nowhere to be seen in the lateral x-rays. That is because it is covered over." And then later down the page: "light readings on post-mortem x-rays on other cadavers (provided by Doug DeSalles, M.D.) in the area of what Dr. Mantik calls the 'great white patch' over the large defect area in the back further proves that it cannot be a true feature of the skull." And it wasn't just Livingstone that was hawking Mantik's wares. The second-to-last page of the Winter 1996 issue of the Kennedy Assassination Chronicles featured a large ad for a 7-part video series by Dr. James Fetzer, priced at 19.95. In this series, Fetzer discussed the recent findings of a number of researchers, including Dr. Mantik. Leading off the list of the most important "new JFK assassination findings" presented in this series is "that autopsy x-rays of JFK's cranium were fabricated to conceal (a) massive blowout to the back of the head." In part 3 of the series, now available on youtube, Dr. Fetzer discussed Dr. Mantik's finding one could add a white patch to an x-ray. He then relates "In that way you'd have a patch that concealed exactly the area that all the witnesses testified had been blown out at the back of the President's head." Mantik's claim spread far and wide... Here is how Noel Twyman described the computer-enhanced right lateral x-ray in his book Bloody Treason (1997): "This x-ray is considered by Dr. David Mantik to have been altered to conceal evi­dence of a blow-out of brain from the right hemisphere of the head through a hole in the rear of the skull. This was accomplished by either making a composite x-ray in which area P was masked to conceal the absence of brain or bone in that region, or by shielding that portion of the head when the x-ray was taken." And here is how Stewart Galanor presented Mantik's findings in Cover-up (1998): "Dr. Mantik was forced to conclude that the autopsy X-rays of President Kennedy's head had been altered. They were composites. The original autopsy X-rays had been rephotographed with a radio-dense patch super­ imposed over the rear portion of the head, the region precisely where the Parkland doctors had seen a large gaping wound." And here is how Mantik's number one supporter, Dr. James Fetzer, presented Mantik's findings in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000): "As Mantik has discovered through the employment of optical densitometry studies, the lateral cranial x-ray has been fabricated by imposing a patch over a massive defect to the back of the head, which corresponds to the eyewitness reports..." And here is Fetzer again in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003): "Dr. David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D...has discovered that the right lateral cranial x-ray has been altered by imposing a patch to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head..." And here is Fetzer in Reasoning About Assassinations, an article published in the International Journal of the Humanities (2006): "In response to the controversy ignited by the release of Oliver Stone's film "JFK", I organized a research group of physicians, physicists, photo-analysts and attorneys to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy...Our research has...led to the discovery of...deceptions in the death of JFK. The most important are that the autopsy x-rays have been fabricated (a) to conceal the massive blow-out to the back of the head that more than forty eyewitnesses reported and (b) to add a 6.5 mm metallic slice in an apparent effort to implicate an obscure World War II Italian Mannlicher-Carcano as the weapon used." And here is Fetzer again on a TV program entitled The World's Greatest Mysteries (2008): "The President's autopsy has been a source of controversy in that regard which extends to the autopsy x-rays which were fabricated to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head caused by a shot from the front." And here is how author Jim Douglass presented Mantik's findings in JFK and the Unspeakable (2008): "There was far too much bone density being shown in the rear of of JFK's skull relative to the front. The X-ray had to have been a composite. The optical density data indicated a forgery in which a patch had been placed over an original x-ray to cover the rear part of the skull--corresponding to the gap left in part by the Harper fragment, evidence of an exit wound. The obvious purpose was to cover-up evidence of a shot from the front that, judging from the original Parkland observations, had created an exit hole the size of one's fist in the back of the head..." And here is how Mantik's closest associate Doug Horne presented Mantik's findings in an interview published in Dick Russell's book On the Trail of the JFK Assassins (2008): "The two lateral skull x-rays, Mantik has demonstrated, had a very dense optical patch superimposed on the copy films over the occipital-parietal area behind the ear to mask the blow-out or exit wound seen in Dallas in the back of the head." And here is what Horne had to say about Mantik's findings in his own book Inside the ARRB Vol. 1, published the next year: "Mantik posited that the purpose of placing the alleged forged composite copy films of the skull into the official record was twofold...in the case of the two lateral skull x-rays, the purpose of the suspected artifact (which Mantik calls the 'white patch') was to obliterate, or rather mask, an area of missing bone (and brain) in the right rear of the skull--and therefore to erase evidence of being shot from the front..." And here is Horne in Inside the ARRB, vol. 2, published at the same time as vol. 1: "If Dr. Mantik is correct that a dense patch is present behind the right ear in x-rays 2 and 3--and that x-rays 2 and 3 are not originals, but instead are forged composite copy films of the real laterals, with a patch or large artifact covering up a blow-out behind the right ear superimposed, then this could account for the differences in perception between the many autopsy witnessed who recall the back of the head missing, or blown out, at autopsy, and who believed that night that President Kennedy had been shot from the front, and the perceptions of the Clark Panel, the HSCA panel, and most people who view x-ray no. 2 and 3 today, who see apparent evidence of an exit wound in the right front of the skull." And should that not be clear enough, here is Horne in vol. 2 a bit later: "Mantik believes that the 'great white area' in the posterior skull (the occipital-parietal area, to be precise) on the lateral x-rays is an optical 'patch' (i.e., a 'light-blasted' area) superimposed on top of the authentic x-ray image...The transmission ratios between area 'P' and the ear canal are different on the JFK lateral skull x-rays because the forged composite copy films created after the autopsy were imperfectly created--that is, the right lateral was 'light-blasted' more than the left lateral was during the copying process, when the occipital-parietal blowout was obliterated by exposing the copy film to extra light in that region." And here is how Mantik presented his findings in his 2009 JFK Lancer presentation: "The White Patch was likely added in the dark room, to both left and right lateral X-rays. Its purpose was to obscure the loss of tissue at the back of the skull and its effect (especially alongside the very dark area at the front) was to suggest a bullet entry from the rear that blew out tissue from the front." And here is how Mantik, in an interview uploaded to youtube on 3-31-10, responded to his friend and supporter James Fetzer's assertion the white patch was probably created "in order to conceal the massive blow-out to the back of the head reported by more than 40 different witnesses including massive, experienced physicians at Parkland Hospital"...crickets. Fetzer said the white patch was perhaps Mantik's "most celebrated" discovery, and said it was probably done to conceal the large defect observed at Parkland Hospital, and Mantik didn't deny it. And, should one assume Mantik was simply being polite, one should note how Mantik responded to Fetzer's subsequent question about Kennedy autopsy radiologist John Ebersole. When asked whether Ebersole would be the "prime candidate" for being the one who'd "effectuated the obfuscation of the defect," Mantik replied: "Yes, he would." And here is how...just kidding. I'm sure you get it by now. Mantik said the white patch covered the hole on the back of the head noted by the witnesses and the research community echoed his claims. As he also claimed the Harper fragment had exploded from the back of the head, moreover, it seemed obvious Mantik had simultaneously claimed the white patch covered the hole from which the Harper fragment had exploded. That's what everyone thought. And I dare say that's what Mantik wanted them to think. But then I came along. From leafing through some radiology books, and putting two and two together, I realized that the central claim regarding Mantik's findings--that the white patch covered a hole on the back of Kennedy's head--was hoo-ha, as the "white patch" was on the side of the head, and did not reach the back of the head. I began stating as much online. Now, this led to attacks by Dr. Fetzer in which he called me the worst researcher ever, etc. But my efforts were not in vain. On 10-11-10, in a Fetzer post on the Education Forum, Mantik responded to my assertion the Harper fragment did not correlate with the white patch. He wrote: "I have never demonstrated exactly where on the lateral skull X-ray the Harper would appear, but it would be at the very rear." Well, the white patch is not at the very rear. He had thereby confirmed my conclusion. But he failed to state as much publicly. As a result, writers continued to cite either Mantik's original claim about the white patch, or Fetzer and Horne's subsequent claims. Here is Phillip F. Nelson in LBJ: Mastermind of the JFK Assassination (2013): "Dr. Mantik's expert analysis of the two lateral skull x-rays proved conclusively that 'a very dense optical patch [was] superimposed on the copy films over the occipital-parietal area behind the ear to mask the blow-out or exit wound seen in Dallas in the back of the head.'" But alas, all things must pass. On October 17, 2013, as part of our "duel" presentations on the Harper fragment at the Wecht Conference in Pittsburgh, Mantik finally admitted: "The white patch has nothing to do with the missing Harper fragment!" Now this didn't come as a surprise. I'd noticed some years earlier that Mantik had retreated from his earliest claims regarding the white patch. To wit, his 2003 paper summing up his findings had said merely that "the white patch was almost certainly added in the dark room. Its purpose was to emphasize the resulting dark area in front, which suggested that a bullet had exited from the front." Well, heck, that's a long cry from claiming its purpose was to conceal the occipital-parietal blowout described by the Parkland witnesses. And this was nothing new. A 12-12-98 post by Mike Griffith on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup reported: "In other correspondence with me, Dr. Mantik pointed out that the large white patch is NOT in the same area as the right occipital-parietal wound described by so many witnesses. In light of this, I asked him to explain why the white patch was placed on the x-rays. He replied as follows: MANTIK: TO MISDIRECT ATTENTION TO THE DARK FRONTAL AREA--IT LOOKS MORE LIKE AN EXIT THEN. ALSO, IN REALITY, THERE WAS BRAIN MISSING AT THE REAR (WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH A REAR EXIT) BUT BY USING A WHITE PATCH THIS MISSING BRAIN WAS OBSCURED." So the white patch which Mantik originally claimed covered a hole now only covered up the missing brain near the hole. Now, what had changed since Mantik first popped on the scene, claiming it had covered a hole? Well, a quick review of Mantik's writings shows that he never mentioned the Harper fragment in his early articles, and that he first claimed it fit into the middle of the back of Kennedy's skull in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). So it seems clear from this that somewhere between 1994 and 1998 he realized he couldn't have it both ways--a blow-out hole on the right side as well as on the middle of the back of the head--and decided to ditch his original claim the white patch covered a hole on the right side. But did Mantik acknowledge that he'd changed his mind on this issue? Or that, at the very least, he'd misled the research community on this very important point? No, of course not.
  8. While the format of the show (Bob Baer=supersleuth), and its constant claims of presenting "new" evidence that's actually been known for decades, is undoubtedly annoying, I consider the program a win for the research community overall. I mean, think about it. Baer, a respected former CIA officer, is hosting a main-stream produced program in which he flat-out claims the FBI and CIA hid evidence from the public and that the "official" story of Oswald being some lone-nut stinks. While a step to the side of the path we might envision, it's nevertheless a step forward from the Bugliosi-fueled "the WC was totally legit and all the people claiming it was a cover-up are wackos" rut of the last decade's programs re JFK.
  9. It is my understanding that ole time police-work such as that used in Dallas in 1963 often consisted of faking-up some evidence in order to insure a confession. This faked-up evidence is not entered into evidence at trial, however. With that thought, in mind, then, it seems possible Day and Fritz faked-up the palm-print, etc, but never intended for this evidence to be used at trial. That would explain why they did such a bad job with the paper trail for this evidence. It is largely non-existent. As far as the quote regarding the print being an old print, Day made this claim numerous times. First Day Evidence, a book written as a defense of the crime lab by the nephew of one of Day's employees, contains something similar. As do the Sixth Floor Museum Oral Histories... The problem with the quote, however, is that is unscientific, in that books on fingerprinting insist you can not accurately determine the age of a print.
  10. Jackie believed LBJ had JFK killed

    This article is a re-publish of an article published in anticipation of the release of the tapes in 2013. It got it wrong. It probably made stuff up from whole cloth. It's (gulp) fake news. I mean, really, if the tapes included the stuff described in the article, and were cut out at the last minute, would some website be the only news source to break this story? I suspect not. There's also this. Jackie was almost certainly sober when she spoke to Schlesinger, and discussed most everything but the assassination. Not so much when she spoke to Manchester, and discussed the assassination in detail. The real dirt will come out with the release of the Manchester tapes (which, per Jackie's agreement with Manchester, are to be withheld while Caroline lives).
  11. How the FBI lost the rifle's fingerprints

    I have quite a lot of material on this issue on my website, that those with an interest should check out. The Fingerprints of Myth PowerPoint presentation should be of particular interest. As far as DVP's claims about the palm print... he misses quite a bit. 1. In September, after questions were raised re the palm print, Day refused to sign a sworn statement in which he said he found the palm print on the rifle. 2. Hoover's claim Latona matched up artifacts on the lift which matched up with the rifle was contained in a letter written to the commission, and was never received in sworn testimony. 3. Latona was not recalled as a witness to make a sworn statement about the palm print. 4. No copy of Latona's report on the palm print has ever surfaced. 5. No photo showing the location of the palm print on the rifle has ever surfaced. 6. Although Day claimed he lifted the print on the 22nd, there is no record of him making this lift or comparing this lift to Oswald's prints in the DPD's files. I mean, just think about that. He lifts the print on the 22nd. And FAILS to do a comparison to Oswald's prints. Even though the DPD knows by the next day the FBI failed to find any prints on the rifle. Then Oswald gets murdered. And the world wants to know if Oswald was the killer. And he STILL fails to perform a comparison to Oswald's prints, or even call the FBI and tell them he has a print that can tie Oswald to the gun. For two days... And then he sends the print to the FBI with no notice... If this isn't suspicious, well then, it sure is proof of incompetence.... As far as Day's integrity, etc... he is without doubt one of the least credible witnesses put on display by the commission. He claimed HE found the palm print on the seat box, when it was really his assistant Robert Studebaker who discovered and signed the cardboard holding this print. He made out that he inspected the paper bag in the building, when it was almost certainly "discovered" and removed while he was transporting the rifle to the police station. He claimed he noticed signs photographers had been in the sniper's nest upon his return to the building on Sunday 11-24, when the photographers claimed he'd given them a personal tour of the sniper's nest on Friday 11-22, and even took pictures of him pointing out the window and the location where the rifle had been found. He made out that the 11-25 sniper's nest re-enactment photos showed the window boxes from the 22nd, when they showed different boxes, including one marked up to look like the box from the 22nd. He never revealed the whereabouts of the original boxes from 11-23--11-26, when they were presumably sent to Washington.
  12. He was shown the throat wound in the photos by both Nova in 1988 and Livingstone in 1991, plus God knows how many other times. And he always said that was the incision he saw in Dallas. He also said that's the way they did tracheostomies back then. It is logically inconsistent to cite McClelland's recollections as "proof" the back of the head was blown out, but then totally reject his recollections of the throat incision, and say that wound was also altered. You can have one, but not the other. As far as your assertion McC said the wound was in the occipital and the size of an orange, you must be confusing him with someone else. He originally said the wound was "of the left temple" and only changed it to being on the back of the head months later, after he'd learned of the accounts of the other doctors. While he has, at times, provided support for the so-called "McClelland drawing" (which he, in fact, did not draw, or help be drawn), he has, when pressed, acknowledged it is grossly inaccurate, and fails to show the front part of this wound on top of the head McClelland now remembers. (FWIW, he also supports the single-bullet theory.) Here are some revealing quotes from McClelland. "what we were trying to depict here was what the posterior part of the wound looked like. In other words, it's not the entire wound. It's simply the posterior part of it and what I thought of as the critical part of it at that time and still do." McClelland to the ARRB, when discussing the so-called McClelland drawing. "The whole right side of his skull was gone...(Kennedy) was initially hit from a bullet fired from the sixth floor that went through his back and out through his neck.The next injury was caused by somebody behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll firing a shot that blew out the right side of his head." McClelland via Skype to the 2013 Wecht Conference. "Well, I think it's only that one picture. I discounted that picture because I thought someone was pulling the scalp over it, but someone told me they weren't, but it sure looked like they were. I think they were, so I was not mystified by saying it doesn't look like what I saw. The wounds that I saw when that flap is not covering them were just the kind of same wounds that I had seen in Trauma Room One. That picture where they are pulling the flap up was the only one out of several photos, which didn't jive with what I saw." McClelland as quoted by Jacob Carter in When History Dies (2015). This is an important point...the only photo McClelland has expressed a problem with is the back of the head photo. He thinks that perhaps the scalp is being pulled up in that photo. While this may seem significant to those wanting to believe the photo is fake, it is also significant that McClelland has never expressed a problem with the right profile and top of the head photos, which show a wound in the same location as the back of the head photo. As shown here:
  13. Re: the throat incision... From patspeer.com, chapter 18d: Those claiming the tracheostomy incision apparent on the photos too wide to have been the incision made by Dr. Perry miss that this was not a typical tracheostomy incision from the 1980's or afterward--that is, a vertical incision performed to establish an airway--but a 1960's-era horizontal incision through a bullet wound which could not only be used to establish an airway, but serve as a portal to view the extent of the wound...and through which vascular surgery could be conducted if necessary. And, no, I'm not clutching at straws. While most recent manuals and websites describing tracheostomies describe a vertical incision, vertical incisions were not the norm in 1963. An Atlas of Head and Neck Surgery, by Dr. John M. Lore, Jr., a medical text from 1962, for example, instructs: "About one or two centimeters below the cricoid cartilage a horizontal incision is made from 4 to 6 cm in length." Well, heck, the incision on Kennedy's neck was reportedly 6.5 cm, only slightly wider than normal, and not the wide, gaping, act of mayhem claimed by all too many conspiracy theorists anxious to "debunk" the photos. And that's not all. Lore then notes "The vertical skin incision has been completely abandoned." Completely abandoned! So, yes, those claiming the photos showing the neck wound are fake (or indicative of pre-autopsy surgery in which a bullet was removed from the neck) are completely off-base, and serial spreaders of manure... Not to mention total hypocrites... I mean, really. Dr. Robert McClelland, the Parkland witness most often quoted by those claiming the autopsy photos are fake has gone on the record numerous times regarding the neck wound, and has always said the neck wound in the photos reflects his recollection of the neck wound he helped create by pulling upwards with an Army/Navy retractor. No, seriously. When commenting on the incision shown in Kennedy's autopsy photos for the PBS program Nova in 1988, McClelland said the incision was "exactly the same size and the same configuration" as the incision he saw in Dallas. And this wasn't just McClelland telling a news program what he thought it wanted to hear. After being shown the tracheostomy incision in the so-called stare of death photo, McClelland told a 1991 Conference put together by Harrison Livingstone "This is the incision. And that does look like the incision that I saw that day...It may be somewhat longer than usual but at that time it was not unusual at all (that) in haste of putting in a tracheostomy tube, for an incision to be that length." He's repeated this numerous times, moreover, and in numerous public appearances, including his appearance via Skype at the 2013 Wecht Conference in Pittsburgh. So how can those claiming his recollections regarding the head wound are irrefutable, and not to be doubted, simply ignore his statements regarding the neck wound and tracheostomy incision, and defer instead to the recollections of others such as Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who were in the room but a few seconds...and who had nothing to do with the incision?
  14. One can disagree with Lifton's conclusions without stooping to such ridicule, MIchael. This forum, at its best, is a place where people can discuss seemingly bizarre theories with respect for those holding those theories. David Lifton has provided us with a number of informative posts in the past, and I suspect he will do so in the future. He's been at the middle of this stuff for 50 years now. We can learn from him.
  15. A couple of points. 1. Sherry Fiester was not a supporter of the Hickey-did-it theory. She came to believe a bullet fired from the south knoll entered the right front of Kennedy's head and blew out the right rear of his head. 2. Both assistants at the autopsy, O'Connor and Jenkins, claimed the scalp was reflected to the left, and the brain was pulled out the right side. While not as specific as O'Connor and Jenkins. Humes and Boswell said basically the same thing---that the skull on the right side collapsed as they peeled the scalp away from the large wound (which would be back and to the left), and that, in any event no craniotomy (a removal of the skull cap that is standard to most autopsies) was necessary. There's also this. The "mystery photo" was not taken at an angle. There is a jar on the table in the background that allows us to understand the orientation of the photo. This is shown below.
  16. FWIW, Sandy, the late Sherry Fiester, a professional blood-spatter analyst, came to that same realization (that the grassy knoll was out of line with a shot entering the right front of the head and exiting the back of the head), and came to conclude the fatal bullet was fired from the south knoll. You might want to take a look at her stuff.
  17. While Orr's background in the DOJ and relationship with Fox news gives him the appearance of being an authority on this matter, his proposed scenario is incredibly wobbly and out-dated, in my opinion. Oswald as a shooter? For the mafia? With the head shot being fired from the roof of the County Records Building? The bullet entering the back of the head at the cowlick? With the doctors (not just Humes) admitting they were wrong when they said it entered near the EOP? The doctors not studying x-rays at the autopsy? The so-called 6.5 mm fragment not only being on the back of the head, but being the copper base of a soft-nosed bullet? The back and to the left movement of Kennedy's head being caused by a jet effect? While Orr took delight in claiming the single-bullet theory was dead, he failed to realize that much of his own theory was just as dead (or close to it).
  18. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    Hunting ammo is designed to explode upon impact. Military ammo is designed to cut through. The only time military ammo explodes is when it hits bone on a tangent. This is what Dr. Clark thought happened and this is what I came to believe as well. This is discussed in chapter 16b. From chapter 16b: Just hours after the assassination, Dr. Clark told the nation at a press conference that the wound "could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." And from there his resolve grew stronger. Over the next few weeks, in interview after interview, Dr. Clark repeated such claims and was considered so credible that as late as December 23, 1963, Medical Tribune and Medical News was still reporting that the fatal bullet struck "a tangential blow that avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue as the bullet left the skull on a glancing course." Dr. Clark was just not one to back down. Months after he'd been told the conclusions reached at autopsy, in fact, Dr. Clark told the Warren Commission that, in his impression, the large head wound was a--drum roll, please--"tangential wound." To his eternal credit, moreover, Dr. Clark also told the Warren Commission why he suspected as much. On March 21, 1964, he testified that if a bullet “strikes the skull at an angle, it must then penetrate much more bone than normal, therefore, it is likely to shed more energy, striking the brain a more powerful blow. Secondly, in striking the bone in this manner, it may cause pieces of the bone to be blown into the brain and thus act as secondary missiles. Finally, the bullet itself may be deformed and deflected so that it would go through or penetrate parts of the brain, not in the usual line it was proceeding.” Dr. Clark had thereby testified that, in his opinion, the injury to Kennedy's brain was more extensive than would be expected if the bullet had simply entered low on the back of the head. As he only inspected the brain at the large defect, moreover, he had testified that, in his opinion, a bullet had transited the skull along the surface of this defect, i.e., that this defect did not appear to be the exit for a bullet entering elsewhere. He'd also voiced his suspicion that splinters of bone had been blown into the brain at this location. That splintering along the skull's inner table is symptomatic of a tangential wound, moreover, has long been noted. The caption to a photograph taken at the Army Medical Museum after the Civil War, and found in a collection of civil war medical reports available from BACM research, relates "The specimen is an excellent illustration of that variety of fracture of the skull, in which the outer table remains intact, and the thinner and more friable vitreous table is splintered: an accident resulting always, it is believed, either from a shock of a projectile striking the cranium very obliquely, or else from a comparatively slight blow from a body with a large plain surface." That small pieces of bone were, shockingly, when one thinks of it, blown into Kennedy's brain at the supposed exit location was confirmed, by the way, by the January, 1965 report on the assassination by Dr. Finck given to his superior, Gen. Blumberg. Finck described the inspection of the brain as follows: “No metallic fragments are identified but there are numerous small bone fragments, between one and ten millimeters in greatest dimension, in the container where the brain was fixed.” This blowing of numerous small bone fragments, or splinters, into and onto the surface of the brain would have to have occurred at the large defect by Kennedy's temple, where small pieces of bone were never recovered. The two suspected entrances at the back of the head, after all, were barely the circumference of the bullet. It seems entirely too much a coincidence then that all the large head wounds affiliated with 6.5 mm ammunition in the Fiji Campaign were tangential wounds, and that the first doctor to inspect the large head wound on Kennedy thought it was a tangential wound, and that numerous bone fragments were removed from the surface of Kennedy's brain, and that such fragments are symptomatic of, yessirree, tangential wounds. It is also intriguing to know that Dr. Clark never really wavered from his suspicion that the wound was "tangential." While he testified to the Warren Commission that the wound could be other than a tangential wound, he only did so after being asked one of Arlen Specter's infamous leading questions... Mr. SPECTER - The physicians, surgeons who examined the President at the autopsy specifically, Commander James J. Humes, H-u-m-e-s (spelling); Commander J. Thornton Boswell, B-o-s-w-e-l-l (spelling), and Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, F-i-n-c-k (spelling), expressed the Joint opinion that the wound which I have just described as being 15 by 6 mm. and 2.5 cm. to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberant was a point of entrance of a bullet in the President's head at a time when the President's head was moved slightly forward with his chin dropping into his chest, when he was riding in an open car at a slightly downhill position. With those facts being supplied to them in a hypothetical fashion, they concluded that the bullet would have taken a more or less straight course, exiting from the center of the President's skull at a point indicated by an opening from three portions of the skull reconstructed, which had been brought to them---would those findings and those conclusions be consistent with your observations if you assumed the additional facts which I have brought to your attention, in addition to those which you have personally observed? Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir. Well, jeez Louise. Specter may as well have asked him "If the doctors said something could be black would you agree it could be black?" As Clark's acceptance of the "official" story was conditional on both Specter's false description of Kennedy's position at the time of the head shot ("with his chin dropping into his his chest") and his false description of the trajectory from the entrance observed at autopsy to the large defect on the top of Kennedy's skull ("a more or less straight course"), it's clear that Clark never really agreed with what Specter was selling. Unfortunately, he rarely spoke on the subject after his testimony. Perhaps we now know why.
  19. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    Uhhh.... There is no "rest of us" Sandy. I spent a year or so studying the case reading mostly conspiracy books before realizing they were inconsistent. Lifton and his followers pushed that the body was altered but the photos were legit. Groden and Aguilar pushed that the body was not altered but that the photos were faked. Livingstone said that the photos were faked and that the x-rays showed the right forehead to have been missing, . Mantik said the right forehead was apparent on the x-rays but that overly white objects had been added to the x-rays. Lifton, Fetzer and Mantik said the Zapruder film was faked, but Groden and Thompson said it was not faked but was instead clear proof of a conspiracy. There was no consensus, Sandy. Never was. And LNs have successfully used this lack of consensus to make us all look loopy. That is why I decided to take a look at the evidence under the assumption it was legit.
  20. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    Your problem, Cliff, is you fail to realize that your ideas of what constitutes "legitimate" evidence or "properly prepared" evidence have no basis in reality. The autopsy protocol and photos, etc, would have little problem getting accepted into a court of law, and there has never been a case in the history of the world (that you can name anyway) where an approximation of a wound's location made by a distant observer (Burkley) was considered more "legitimate" than the observations and measurements of the doctors who'd actually conducted the autopsy. You fell in love with your smoke. Impressive.
  21. While the scalp is normally reflected forward in an autopsy, Robin, it is also normally reflected back. The "mystery photo" proves it was not reflected back. Well, it follows that the normal procedure was not employed and that we have no reason to believe it was reflected forward. And then there's all that other stuff on my website like the measurements and the proportions of the drainage hole, etc. All of this proves the photo was not taken from above looking down on the forehead. Of course none of that prepared me for my most unexpected discovery--that the supposed crack on the forehead was really the handle of a medical instrument sticking out of the cranium.
  22. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    It's really quite simple, Cliff. The government's evidence, if taken as legitimate, and actually studied, is clear evidence for a conspiracy. As I find it beyond bizarre that the government would fake evidence showing a conspiracy, and then turn around and have experts embarrass themselves by pretending the evidence doesn't show conspiracy, I assume the evidence to be authentic. I feel 100% certain, moreover, that the evidence for conspiracy (or at the very least massive government incompetence) would be readily apparent to the media and academia, etc, should they ever come to view that evidence, as opposed to the by-now-long-disregarded evidence for photo alteration, etc. As far as the clothes... as you know I agree with you, and always have. If the research "community" would all agree to put that at the top of the list of reasons why we know the Warren Commission was a whitewash, I suspect we would have a lot easier time convincing millennials and other newbies of the validity of our position. Here's one of my better slides, IMO.
  23. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    To sum up, Chesser/Mantik and others have made the argument the autopsy materials are fake, or have been altered, and that this proves conspiracy. This is a wobbly and misguided stance, IMO, because it opens the door for other better qualified experts to say no, they are legit. I, on the other hand, took a look at these materials (plus the Z-film, and eyewitness statements) under the assumption they are legit, and found they don't indicate what the government said they indicated... And that they actually suggest Kennedy was killed by more than one shooter... I have based many of my arguments, moreover, on the textbooks written by the government's experts. While I am constantly updating and improving my arguments, for that matter, it grows increasingly clear that my approach, if not my arguments, will win the day. Of course, to be fair, I'm not the first to adopt this approach. Dr. Randy Robertson, who spoke at Lancer, has been at it a lot longer than me and shares this approach. Robertson firmly believes the materials are legit and clear evidence for conspiracy. I wasn't taking a poll, but I'm pretty sure his presentation was at least as well received as Chesser's, even though the majority of those in the room believe the materials to have been altered. In getting back to Chesser, moreover, it should be noted that his main contribution, if you will, is in drawing attention to an area of the forehead which may show fragments, and may indicate a bullet entrance. While I'm not as yet convinced of this, I congratulate him on bringing up an argument based upon what is on the x-rays, as opposed to what he thinks has been concealed.
  24. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    I have no interest in "proving" the photo is authentic. The government claims it is authentic. I don't have a problem with this because the photo proves the back wound was too low to be consistent with the single-bullet theory. The government inadvertently admitted this, moreover, by hiring a trajectory expert to support the single-bullet theory, who promptly moved the wound up two inches to make it work. This is stuff I discovered years ago, and discussed in my 2014 presentation at Bethesda, which represented the final nail in the single-bullet theory. (If the first nail was Fonzi's discussion with Specter--where Specter couldn't get the clothing to rise--the last nail, IMO, was my presentation in Bethesda, where WC counsel Burt Griffin stormed out of the room when I proved that Arlen Specter called the wound a back wound until he was shown a picture of the wound proving it was on the back and too low to support the single-bullet theory, whereupon he started calling it a "back-of-the-neck" wound. It was only fitting, moreover, that Fonzi's wife, Marie, attended this presentation, and congratulated me afterword, telling me her husband would have been so proud. To my mind it had come full circle, and the single-bullet theory was dead. There has most certainly not been anything since 2014 to bring it back alive.) That you would have people ignore all this--is undoubtedly disappointing.
  25. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, repeatedly claimed he'd taken the autopsy photographs, and that they showed the wounds as he recalled them. He did, however, at the age of 78, claim the film used in the subsequent brain photographs was not the kind he used. People with an agenda then conflate this into his saying he said the autopsy photos are fake...when he said the exact opposite...on numerous occasions. As far as the brain photos, because of the interference of the government, the whole autopsy and post-autopsy was performed in a manner unlike the normal routine for Bethesda. It seems possible, then, that Stringer was provided equipment he was not used to using. Or even that someone else took the photographs. But it doesn't matter much. The brain shown in the photos is not consistent with a brain injured in the manner described by the WC or HSCA, but is consistent with a brain struck by a tangential blow to the right hemisphere--precisely as described by Dr. Clark in the original press conference regarding Kennedy's wounds. As a result, I suspect the photos are both legitimate. and clear-cut evidence for more than one shooter.
×