David Mantik Responds to Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Getting to see/hear the views of experts like David Mantik and Pat Speer on the subject of the wounds is like receiving a post-doctoral course in the subject.

Seriously? You are equating their respective levels of expertise? If that is true, then why is one (Mantik) allowed into the National Archives to handle the actual autopsy materials and conduct scientific tests on it, while the other (Speer) is not even allowed access to the materials for lack of expertise?

To wit, David W. Mantik:

1) received his doctorate in physics from the University of Wisconsin (his doctoral thesis concerned x-ray scattering)

2) became a member of the physics faculty (as assistant professor) at the University of Wisconsin

3) upon choosing a profession in the medical field, completed his internship and residency in radiation oncology at LAC/USC Medical Center in Los Angeles

4) completed a fellowship in physics at the University of Illinois

5) completed a fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University

6) completed a junior faculty clinical fellowship with the American Cancer Society

As for Pat Speer:

1) received no degree in physics

2) was not a professor of physics

3) never completed any medical internship in any field at any University

4) completed no fellowship in physics, biophysics, or any medical discipline

Moreover, David Mantik's qualifications and expertise in correctly reading and interpreting data gleaned from x-rays is demonstrated by the hundreds, if not thousands (no exaggeration), of patients whose lives have depended on him to accurately identify and locate malignancies that were first observed by him in their x-rays.

I do not mean to criticize Speer for his lack of qualifications. I mean to criticize him for attempting to piss in the tall grass with the big dogs.

You just don't know when to drop it, Greg.

Let me remind you. It was your whiz-kid Mantik who could not orient a simple x-ray, and insisted he was right for years until faced with the prospect of my humiliating him in front of Cyril.

And it is this same whiz-kid who continues to push one of the loopiest, at-odds-with-every-witness, at-odds-with-every expert, at-odds-with-every-anatomy-book, at-odds-with-common -sense, theories imaginable, namely, that the Harper fragment is upper occipital bone.

So, quit being such a fanboy, and take an objective look at the evidence. I know you think you're helping Mantik by defending him against the likes of me but the best thing you could do for him, IMO, is to convince him he's wrong about the Harper fragment being occipital bone.

P.S. It is a red herring to argue I disagree with Mantik's OD data. I do not. I am quite skeptical he's interpreted it correctly, however. And I'm far from alone. Mantik came out with his findings over 20 years ago now, and not one forensic radiologist has come forward to offer him support. Now why is that? While the possibility exists that they are all ascared and it is only the great Mantik who stands tall, it seems much more likely that they believe, as Fitzpatrick, that the white patch is the wing of bone, and that Mantik's observations about the OD data are off-target.

As far as your bit about the big dogs... Oh, please... Mantik and I took the same stage at the Pittsburgh conference to offer competing theories re the Harper fragment, and I more than held my own.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Greg Burnham]

Yawn.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Pat,

Although I believe Mantik and Chesser, you make implicitly a larger point. Which is about credentials.

Just so there is no understanding, I pay respect to a PhD in physics and an M.D. degree.

Nonetheless, I've found both PhDs and M.D.s lacking in knowledge. Therefore, I don't pay homage to a university degree.

An M.D. degree, as a physician friend once told me, means the holder is correct half the time but doesn't know which half.

Anyway, I think Mantik and Chesser are correct. But I like your critique, which I believe is fair.

[Brian Schmidt]

FWIW, I think Pat is right on this one. And Mr. Logic, I mean Mr. Burnham, seems to be a victim of ecological fallacy. Just because doctors and professors are statistically more correct than lay persons on an aggregate basis, doesn't preclude non-"experts" from being right on an individual basis in certain circumstances.

[Greg Burnham]

To be clear, I do not believe, nor have I ever claimed, that a person who holds an advanced degree is necessarily correct.

Neither have I claimed, nor do I believe, that an advanced degree is required for an individual to arrive at the truth, nor that the truth an amateur arrives at may only be valid if it, in fact, agrees with the experts.

However, when we are talking about truth as discoverable through science, then the SCIENTIFIC METHOD should be relied upon rather than lesser methodologies.

Doctors Mantik and Chesser have employed the Scientific Method to advance their positions. Pat Speer has not. I am inviting him to do so. That other experts have failed to conduct experiments to attempt to replicate the findings of both Mantik and Chesser, respectively, does not constitute any type of proof that Mantik and/or Chesser are mistaken.

Pat Speer makes overly broad criticisms without providing the science to support his conclusions.

As David pointed out above: If Speer disagrees with this conclusion then he should say so—and supply quantitative data.

​I can only conclude that Pat Speer does not supply original quantitative data because he does not possess any. He points out that Mantik's original findings were published 20 years ago, but fails to point out that no scientist has ever refuted Mantik's findings by supplying quantitative data in support of such refutation.

As I said in a different thread:

What I find most amazing is that we have so-called researchers here who have never themselves handled or directly examined the autopsy evidence, yet claim to have some inside info on what the evidence shows. Additionally, not only do they lack experience with handling, examining and testing these specific items of medical evidence, but they also lack having ANY experience with handling, examining or testing ANY medical evidence from ANY autopsy from ANYWHERE at ANY time.

So Brian, this goes way beyond any bias toward an expert's opinion over an amateur's opinion. It speaks to the qualification required to render an educated opinion based not only on academic credentials, but on actual practical real-world experience.

Like I said, I hope the view is good from the cheap seats. If they are not the cheap seats then perhaps Pat should put some quantitative data where his mouth is!

Edited December 22, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Gene Kelly]

Greg:

I have a degree in Physics and a Masters in Engineering... and I teach physics. So I appreciate and respect the credentials of Dr. Mantik. But I also admire the thorough work of Pat Speer and have learned a lot from his posts and broader JFK writing. I would not dismiss his views, any more than I would dismiss yours. And I certainly wouldn't discount his contribution simply because of academic credentials.

A wise person once told me (and I abide by this approach) that the solicitation of diverse views is the hallmark of intellectual honesty.

Gene

[Greg Burnham]

Greg:

I have a degree in Physics and a Masters in Engineering... and I teach physics. So I appreciate and respect the credentials of Dr. Mantik. But I also admire the thorough work of Pat Speer and have learned a lot from his posts and broader JFK writing. I would not dismiss his views, any more than I would dismiss yours. And I certainly wouldn't discount his contribution simply because of academic credentials.

A wise person once told me (and I abide by this approach) that the solicitation of diverse views is the hallmark of intellectual honesty.

Gene

Gene,

I am not dismissing him on the grounds that he lacks credentials. I am objecting to his taking pot shots from the gallery. There is a way to approach this that would lend itself to discovering more about the evidence. That approach is cooperative rather than divisive. That approach would attempt to replicate the findings before dismissing them. You should know better with YOUR credentials than to argue otherwise.

[Gene Kelly]

Greg:

This seems more a matter of style versus substance. As you are no doubt aware, there are many folks (of varied backgrounds) who post, some of whom are serious writers and valid researchers, while others are more travelers and observers. Dr. Mantik has considerable credibility and his contributions are impressive.

Speaking for myself, I'm interested in the facts of the case and thoughtful interaction. I find that I learn more by keeping an open mind to all inputs. A study of the history of physics will tell you that there is great scientific debate that occurs, much like the debate on these JFK threads. Some of it gets heated and personal. Even Einstein's relativity theory is still contested, 100 years after its conception. So is quantum mechanics, a difficult subject open to many interpretations. Some critics are eminent scholars with many publications and degrees from the best institutions, Nobel laureates and the like. Other contributors are less credentialed, but no less respected and heard. So, I'm not sure how to take it when you state that I should know better... but I'll let it go.

Gene

[Greg Burnham]

Gene,

I was referring to the proper approach to scientific inquiry: scientific method. I do not believe that Pat Speer has offered anything close to it, particularly nothing quantitative.

Your analogy to Einstein and quantum mechanics is fatally flawed. The scientific debate that yet persists about those subjects at least proceeds according to the tenets of scientific method.

I am not suggesting that we should silence Part Speer or dismiss HIM out of hand. I am arguing that he should be held to the same STANDARD as the scientific community is held when critiquing a scientific study.

Those who challenge Einstein's theories are only taken seriously if they can show that Einstein's "math" is flawed, his experiments are somehow not replicable, or they can produce a better alternative to it.

Those who criticize Einstein, for example, would never be heard at all if they simply tossed proverbial darts at his work without sincerely attempting to replicate it in good faith.

The claim of cold fusion in the living room was debunked through the inability of other scientists to replicate it. But at least they made the attempt at replication.

That's what I am challenging Pat Speer to do before he advances "quantitative claims" for which he has produced no support let alone proof.

This is about employing the best methodology available in order to test the hypothesis in question.

This should not be about Pat Speer reflexively disputing anything David Mantik publishes, yet that seems so.

It should be about both sides of the debate conforming to accepted standards of properly conducting scientific inquiry.

Surely you find merit to the scientific method? You don't seem to, but I'll let it go.

[Gene Kelly]

Greg:

You have no idea what I think or know, or my professional experience. I have been a physicist and engineer for over 40 years. I know a little bit about scientific method. You submit that I should know better, and that I don't seem to understand or find merit in method. You also seem to know all about those who challenged relativity, and how they expressed that challenge. Is this how you treat those who would disagree or challenge you? I recommend that you get off of your high horse, and practice respect for others' views.

Gene

[Greg Burnham]

Gene,

Why are you changing the subject? This is about the scientific method. I assumed, rightly, that you know what it is and that you know the value of it as per your own profession, else I wouldn't have been sarcastic about it. Having said that, Pat Speer has not offered any cogent rebuttal to David's QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS in this thread. Yet, we know that is where any real debate about this specific aspect of the cranial x-ray evidence should begin.

It is not about a past error nor is it about alleged, but provably unfounded, omissions.

The scientific method demands that any real debate of this subject from where it now stands should focus on replication. In this case, replication or the failure to replicate, must begin from measurements. How could any scientist or layperson be taken seriously if they merely claim that the measurements taken by a scientist are wrong, but without ever demonstrating where the error exists?

I recall a brilliant man whose family business was in plumbing. He discovered and ultimately proved that Stephen Hawking was wrong about the information "lost" in a Black Hole. Of course, Leonard Susskind is much more than a plumber. He is also an eminent Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University. Still, even with his credentials, nobody simply took his word for it, did they? Nope. He had to "do the math" and demonstrate Hawking's error. Yet, even with Susskind's background (an expert) it took him 28 years to prove Hawking wrong and he has one of the best minds in physics, access to the best methodologies, equipment, and peers to review his work in progress.

Granted the x-ray study does not require nearly as complex an understanding of physics as the study of Black Holes requires. Still, refuting MEASUREMENTS can really only be accomplished by providing alternate MEASUREMENTS. So far we have not seen any from Pat Speer.

This is not about respect for another's point of view, Gene. It is about self respect. Any self respecting researcher who does not respect the scientific method, but only pays lip service to it, has more than my opinion of them to worry about.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Burnham]

Pat Speer has cited two (2) Parkland doctors who anomalously believe that the wound was on the upper right side of the head, while the majority of the Parkland witnesses, nine (9) by my count, say that it was in the rear of the head. Several, including a neurosurgeon, record in their contemporaneous notes that cerebellum was visible and, in fact, oozed out of the wound. Can Pat account for the fact that these doctors somehow considered it plausible that they could see cerebellum when the wound was 'really' at the right top of the head? What quantity of brain would be required to be evacuated in order for the "Pat Speer exit hole scenario" to be valid? Would physicians who had seen the tremendous amount of displaced brain material--necessary to expose the cerebellum--not have a compelling remembrance of exactly where this cavernous wound was, and not mistakenly claim that it was in the occiput in notes written up within mere hours of Kennedy's death?

Since both Mantik and Horne posit an entry near the right ear, the right parietal area would likely also be involved, but probably not very visible especially if the scalp had fallen back into its place of origin.

On another note: Why the false dichotomy? Pat would seem to have us believe that the wound needs to be either parietal or occipital, but could not include both. Why? David is not ruling out the parietal area. He is maintaining that the wound involved the occiput, and likely involved the parietal, as well. That appears to be one of the items from the autopsy report that was factually correct.

Pat, perhaps it will also prove useful--to those of us trying to understand your POV--to create an exhibit demonstrating where your exit wound is located, which is an analogue to the one shown at Lancer.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[James DiEugenio]

Greg:

I think as adduced by Milicent Cranor, the number of witnesses who saw cerebellum in Dallas was seven. It was in her review of Bugliosi.

She is very detail oriented and accurate.

Edited December 24, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Burnham]

Greg:

I think as adduced by Milicent Cranor, the number of witnesses who saw cerebellum in Dallas was seven. It was in her review of Bugliosi.

She is very detail oriented and accurate.

I believe David cites nine MD's in his e-book, but let me double check.

I just spoke with Mili on the phone and she is checking. However, she said, "In any event the sworn testimony of the Chief Neurosurgeon, Kemp Clark, who had the most relevant credentials than all the rest put together--and who got the best look at the back of the head--is alone worth more than 50 others. And he told the WC that he saw cerebellum."

She is sending me more material on this issue later today. I will post it when I receive it.

Mili also said:

"That was only the number of doctors I quoted because of the good details they gave – but others could also have commented on it."

Edited December 25, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Robert Prudhomme]

Greg:

I think as adduced by Milicent Cranor, the number of witnesses who saw cerebellum in Dallas was seven. It was in her review of Bugliosi.

She is very detail oriented and accurate.

I believe David cites nine MD's in his e-book, but let me double check.

I just spoke with Mili on the phone and she is checking. However, she said, in any event the sworn testimony of the Chief Neurosurgeon, Kemp Clark, who had more credentials than all the rest put together--and who got the best look at the back of the head--is alone worth more than 50 others. He told the WC that he saw cerebellum.

She is sending me more material on this issue later today. I will post it when I receive it.

Hi Greg

This game we have been forced into, in which only highly educated neurosurgeons with years of medical experience are allowed to name the general location of a large gaping head wound, makes a mockery of the power of human observation.

Even with horribly mangled head wounds one encounters, hunting deer with soft point or hollow point bullets, it only takes five seconds for an experienced hunter to pinpoint the entrance and exit wounds, and to know if they are on the back, front, sides or top of the head.

Clint Hill was the first back of head witness. He had the entire ride from Dealey Plaza to Parkland Memorial Hospital to view JFK's head wound, and this is what he had to say about it to the Warren Commission:

"Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."

He doesn't specify parietal, occipital, temporal of frontal. In layman's terms, he tells us the back of JFK's head was blown off, plain and simple, and that the back of his head was lying on the rear seat. Considering JFK was leaning forward and supposedly shot in the back of the head, with the resultant explosion in the front of the head spreading debris forward, finding the rear of the head in the back seat is, by itself, quite miraculous.

I would be hard pressed to call BS if he told me that story in a bar.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme