The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer

[Greg Burnham]

Pat Speer is out of ammunition. He has nothing new to say. He has not attempted to address the items in question.

He does not even recognize what happens to 3D features in a 2D photo (a fact that was emphasized), nor does he address the three pathologists who held the bone in their hands and still called it occipital!

Isn't it too bad that Speer was not able to hand them his artist's drawing so he could properly educate them?

Enough with this nonsense. With no tip remaining on his weapon, Quixote has retreated from the windmills in resignation, after all.

Classic ploy, Greg. Declare victory then retreat. You started a series of threads pushing nonsense on this forum. I countered these threads by proving that the Harper fragment doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to occipital bone. You tried every which way to get out of this, eventually deciding that a group assault on my credibility was in order. Only I didn't take the bait. This was never about me or what I think; it was always about Mantik's claim the Harper fragment was occipital bone.

He was wrong. Get over it.

Pat,

You have not addressed any of the MANY items in the essay. Instead you change the subject to imply that this is due to some type of personal differences between you and others or that I am merely defending a friend's work.

Please stay on topic.

Answer the RED items...or don't answer them. But please stop changing the subject into a personal conflict. It is not about that.

[Greg Burnham]

I countered these threads by proving that the Harper fragment doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to occipital bone.

You "proved" nothing of the sort! You have failed to even provide any non-subjective evidence in support of this claim.

Pat Speer said:

You tried every which way to get out of this, eventually deciding that a group assault on my credibility was in order. Only I didn't take the bait. This was never about me or what I think; it was always about Mantik's claim the Harper fragment was occipital bone.

He was wrong. Get over it.

I suppose Millicent Cranor--who has been studying and reporting on the medical evidence long before anyone ever heard of you--is also wrong?

I suppose Dr. Michael Chesser--who has handled and tested the actual autopsy materials--is also wrong?

I suppose Dr. Cyril Wecht--who has done all of the above and more--is also wrong?

I suppose nine (9) Parkland doctors--who attended to the actual body of the president in trauma room one--are also wrong?

[Sandy Larsen]

It looks to me like Greg downplays the ridges that apparently should be on occipital bone (by hypothesizing that osteoporosis could have remodeled the skull), and Pat does the opposite (by posting a drawing that emphasizes the ridges).

(I don't believe Pat chose the drawing in order to trick people, but rather because the ridges can be hard to see in a photo.)

As one who had sided with Greg on this issue, I find it it disconcerting that he (or one of his doctor friends) has had to go into apology mode to keep his theory afloat. I think it is a stretch to add to it the hypothetical element of osteoporotic remodeling.

However, my position on this is far from being flipped. Because just as I see Greg in apology mode on the occipital ridge issue, Pat has long been in apology mode on the numerous medical personnel who saw the back-of-head blowout.

I've wondered if the Harper fragment was planted, in front of the limo, in order to support the single shooter theory. If anything, what I've witnessed here makes me consider that possibility more seriously.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

[Pat Speer]

I countered these threads by proving that the Harper fragment doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to occipital bone.

You "proved" nothing of the sort! You have failed to even provide any non-subjective evidence in support of this claim.

Pat Speer said:

You tried every which way to get out of this, eventually deciding that a group assault on my credibility was in order. Only I didn't take the bait. This was never about me or what I think; it was always about Mantik's claim the Harper fragment was occipital bone.

He was wrong. Get over it.

I suppose Millicent Cranor--who has been studying and reporting on the medical evidence long before anyone ever heard of you--is also wrong?

I suppose Dr. Michael Chesser--who has handled and tested the actual autopsy materials--is also wrong?

I suppose Dr. Cyril Wecht--who has done all of the above and more--is also wrong?

I suppose nine (9) Parkland doctors--who attended to the actual body of the president in trauma room one--are also wrong?

That's a bogus argument if ever there was one. Cranor is neither an expert on these matters, nor has she ever presented a comparison of the fragment with the occipital bone to see if it could be occipital bone. Chesser has verified Mantik's OD data, but I'm fairly certain he stopped short of saying his measurements proved the Harper fragment was occipital bone. Cyril is non-committal. And none of the Parkland doctors has ever claimed the Harper fragment was occipital bone.

You claimed 12 "experts" in support of Mantik when it was at best 2 out of the 12. Shame.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

It looks to me like Greg downplays the ridges that apparently should be on occipital bone (by hypothesizing that osteoporosis could have remodeled the skull), and Pat does the opposite (by posting a drawing that emphasizes the ridges).

(I don't believe Pat chose the drawing in order to trick people, but rather because the ridges can be hard to see in a photo.)

As one who had sided with Greg on this issue, I find it it disconcerting that he (or one of his doctor friends) has had to go into apology mode to keep his theory afloat. I think it is a stretch to add to it the hypothetical element of osteoporotic remodeling.

However, my position on this is far from being flipped. Because just as I see Greg in apology mode on the occipital ridge issue, Pat has long been in apology mode on the numerous medical personnel who saw the back-of-head blowout.

I've wondered if the Harper fragment was planted, in front of the limo, in order to support the single shooter theory. If anything, what I've witnessed here makes me consider that possibility more seriously.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

Ah, but where was this "back of head" blow-out, Sandy? That's the issue. I have long acknowledged that the Parkland witnesses, when taken as a whole, suggest the wound was on the back of the head. But this would be at the top of the back of the head, in the rear right corner when viewed from above. Mantik's location for the Harper fragment is a good three inches away from this location. It is just as far away from this location, it not more, than the location shown in the autopsy photos. So it's not a simple matter of Pat is probably wrong so Mantik is probably right.

Mantik, after all, insists the Harper fragment sprang from the middle of the top half of the occipital bone. This centers it roughly at the level of the ear. This means he believes the back of the head was "blown-out" both an inch below the top of the ear, and an inch to the left of the midline. Here are some pictures of where the so-called "back-of-the-head" witnesses placed the wound. Well, geez, how many of them placed the wound in the middle of the back of the head below the top of the ear? (You can disregard O'Connor and Custer because their photos were taken out of context in order to fool Groden's readers.)

So, yeah, Mantik claims the Harper fragment is occipital bone, even though 1) he acknowledges it was found in a location inconsistent with its being occipital bone; 2) it is missing a central ridge that would help identify it as occipital bone, and 3) its being occipital bone is in opposition to the recollections of the vast majority of the so-called "back-of-the-head" witnesses.

In short, it's only occipital bone because he desperately wants it to be occipital bone.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

It looks to me like Greg downplays the ridges that apparently should be on occipital bone (by hypothesizing that osteoporosis could have remodeled the skull), and Pat does the opposite (by posting a drawing that emphasizes the ridges).

(I don't believe Pat chose the drawing in order to trick people, but rather because the ridges can be hard to see in a photo.)

As one who had sided with Greg on this issue, I find it it disconcerting that he (or one of his doctor friends) has had to go into apology mode to keep his theory afloat. I think it is a stretch to add to it the hypothetical element of osteoporotic remodeling.

However, my position on this is far from being flipped. Because just as I see Greg in apology mode on the occipital ridge issue, Pat has long been in apology mode on the numerous medical personnel who saw the back-of-head blowout.

I've wondered if the Harper fragment was planted, in front of the limo, in order to support the single shooter theory. If anything, what I've witnessed here makes me consider that possibility more seriously.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

Ah, but where was this "back of head" blow-out, Sandy? That's the issue. I have long acknowledged that the Parkland witnesses, when taken as a whole, suggest the wound was on the back of the head. But this would be at the top of the back of the head, in the rear right corner when viewed from above. Mantik's location for the Harper fragment is a good three inches away from this location. It is just as far away from this location, it not more, than the location shown in the autopsy photos. So it's not a simple matter of Pat is probably wrong so Mantik is probably right.

Mantik, after all, insists the Harper fragment sprang from the middle of the top half of the occipital bone. This centers it roughly at the level of the ear. This means he believes the back of the head was "blown-out" both an inch below the top of the ear, and an inch to the left of the midline. Here are some pictures of where the so-called "back-of-the-head" witnesses placed the wound. Well, geez, how many of them placed the wound in the middle of the back of the head below the top of the ear? (You can disregard O'Connor and Custer because their photos were taken out of context in order to fool Groden's readers.)

So, yeah, Mantik claims the Harper fragment is occipital bone, even though 1) he acknowledges it was found in a location inconsistent with its being occipital bone; 2) it is missing a central ridge that would help identify it as occipital bone, and 3) its being occipital bone is in opposition to the recollections of the vast majority of the so-called "back-of-the-head" witnesses.

In short, it's only occipital bone because he desperately wants it to be occipital bone.

Pat,

It is true that Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment seems somewhat at odds with the "average location" -- if you will -- of the early testimonies of Parkland medical professionals. I would say that the "average" placement by these witnesses would be the right upper-occipital, lower-parietal, area. More parietal bone than occipital.

The back-of-head autopsy photo clearly contradicts this. The location you describe also contradicts it.

If you believe that the back-of-head photo is authentic, then I believe your view contradicts the testimony of nearly every Parkland medical professional. Their early testimony, that is.

[Robert Prudhomme]

It looks to me like Greg downplays the ridges that apparently should be on occipital bone (by hypothesizing that osteoporosis could have remodeled the skull), and Pat does the opposite (by posting a drawing that emphasizes the ridges).

(I don't believe Pat chose the drawing in order to trick people, but rather because the ridges can be hard to see in a photo.)

As one who had sided with Greg on this issue, I find it it disconcerting that he (or one of his doctor friends) has had to go into apology mode to keep his theory afloat. I think it is a stretch to add to it the hypothetical element of osteoporotic remodeling.

However, my position on this is far from being flipped. Because just as I see Greg in apology mode on the occipital ridge issue, Pat has long been in apology mode on the numerous medical personnel who saw the back-of-head blowout.

I've wondered if the Harper fragment was planted, in front of the limo, in order to support the single shooter theory. If anything, what I've witnessed here makes me consider that possibility more seriously.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

Hi Sandy

The location the Harper fragment was found has always been the fly in the ointment that Lone Nut supporters have used to deny its possibility of being occipital bone. It just makes sense; how could a bone from the back of the head be found in front of the limo's position at z313?

Want to read something REALLY interesting? It's known as Warren Commission Document 298. Here is a link to it:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699

It seems the FBI believed Connally was shot in the back at about the z313 position, and the fatal head shot occurred when the limo was almost at the steps of the pergola, approximately 45 feet further down Elm St. than the z313 position (see visual aid on Page 26).

[Greg Burnham]

That's a bogus argument if ever there was one. Cranor is neither an expert on these matters, nor has she ever presented a comparison of the fragment with the occipital bone to see if it could be occipital bone. Chesser has verified Mantik's OD data, but I'm fairly certain he stopped short of saying his measurements proved the Harper fragment was occipital bone. Cyril is non-committal. And none of the Parkland doctors has ever claimed the Harper fragment was occipital bone.

You claimed 12 "experts" in support of Mantik when it was at best 2 out of the 12. Shame.

If Millicent Cranor is not an expert on the JFK medical evidence, then neither are you! Does that mean we should reject all of your claims out of hand?

As for Dr. Chesser, did you even read what he wrote???

ADDENDUM: Michael Chesser, MD

March 8, 2016

My review of the x-rays and the scalp retraction photograph leads me to the following conclusions:

1. There is a dark area on the AP x-ray, inferior to the left lambdoid suture, with sharp demarcation, which can only be explained by missing occipital bone. This skull defect extends to the left of midline in the upper portion of the occipital bone, and has an outline which is consistent with the Harper fragment.

2. I could not see the right lambdoid suture on the AP x-ray, and this indicates bone loss at least involving the right occipital-parietal junction.

3. The AP x-ray also reveals a dark area inferior and lateral to the orbit on the right side, compared with the left, indicating loss of bone/brain substance in the temporal and occipital region.

4. On the lateral x-ray the lower occipital skull appears disrupted, with jagged fragments. Dr. Mantik’s OD data confirm missing bone in various regions of the occipital bone.

5. I agree with Dr. Mantik’s placement of the Harper fragment. If the three Dallas pathologists were living I would ask them about the features which were visible on the bone fragment which led them to this conclusion. They were looking at a portion of the skull of the President, and I don’t believe that they came to a hasty conclusion, and they must have seen clear features which localized to the occipital bone. The central occipital skull defect seen on the scalp retraction photograph, and the outline of the dark area on the AP x-ray both point toward the Harper fragment’s localization to this area.

6. I believe that the central (extending to the left) occipital skull defect is separate from the exit wound identified by the Parkland and Bethesda personnel. The right occipital wound was described as missing overlying scalp and meninges. I think that the area of the Harper fragment was most likely an area in which there was an overlying flap of scalp. It is also possible that these defects were partially contiguous, with the region of the Harper fragment covered by the scalp.

As for Cyril Wecht's description of the article as a whole: It is outstanding. It is a marvelous satire (written to expose and criticize stupidity according to Webster).

What you have written, Pat, is an example of some of the most intellectually dishonest offerings I have yet to read here or anywhere.

[Pat Speer]

It looks to me like Greg downplays the ridges that apparently should be on occipital bone (by hypothesizing that osteoporosis could have remodeled the skull), and Pat does the opposite (by posting a drawing that emphasizes the ridges).

(I don't believe Pat chose the drawing in order to trick people, but rather because the ridges can be hard to see in a photo.)

As one who had sided with Greg on this issue, I find it it disconcerting that he (or one of his doctor friends) has had to go into apology mode to keep his theory afloat. I think it is a stretch to add to it the hypothetical element of osteoporotic remodeling.

However, my position on this is far from being flipped. Because just as I see Greg in apology mode on the occipital ridge issue, Pat has long been in apology mode on the numerous medical personnel who saw the back-of-head blowout.

I've wondered if the Harper fragment was planted, in front of the limo, in order to support the single shooter theory. If anything, what I've witnessed here makes me consider that possibility more seriously.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

Ah, but where was this "back of head" blow-out, Sandy? That's the issue. I have long acknowledged that the Parkland witnesses, when taken as a whole, suggest the wound was on the back of the head. But this would be at the top of the back of the head, in the rear right corner when viewed from above. Mantik's location for the Harper fragment is a good three inches away from this location. It is just as far away from this location, it not more, than the location shown in the autopsy photos. So it's not a simple matter of Pat is probably wrong so Mantik is probably right.

Mantik, after all, insists the Harper fragment sprang from the middle of the top half of the occipital bone. This centers it roughly at the level of the ear. This means he believes the back of the head was "blown-out" both an inch below the top of the ear, and an inch to the left of the midline. Here are some pictures of where the so-called "back-of-the-head" witnesses placed the wound. Well, geez, how many of them placed the wound in the middle of the back of the head below the top of the ear? (You can disregard O'Connor and Custer because their photos were taken out of context in order to fool Groden's readers.)

So, yeah, Mantik claims the Harper fragment is occipital bone, even though 1) he acknowledges it was found in a location inconsistent with its being occipital bone; 2) it is missing a central ridge that would help identify it as occipital bone, and 3) its being occipital bone is in opposition to the recollections of the vast majority of the so-called "back-of-the-head" witnesses.

In short, it's only occipital bone because he desperately wants it to be occipital bone.

Pat,

It is true that Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment seems somewhat at odds with the "average location" -- if you will -- of the early testimonies of Parkland medical professionals. I would say that the "average" placement by these witnesses would be the right upper-occipital, lower-parietal, area. More parietal bone than occipital.

The back-of-head autopsy photo clearly contradicts this. The location you describe also contradicts it.

If you believe that the back-of-head photo is authentic, then I believe your view contradicts the testimony of nearly every Parkland medical professional. Their early testimony, that is.

You are correct. The early descriptions are, by and large, inconsistent with the back of the head photo. I struggled with this for several years. After a tremendous amount of reading, I came to realize that what it comes down to is this.

1. Those seeing Kennedy actually getting shot thought the bullet impacted on the right side of his head, near his ear, and left a large wound in this area.

2. Those seeing Kennedy in the hospital parking lot were of divergent impressions, with some thinking the wound was on the back of the head, some thinking it was by the ear, and some claiming to see the back of the head, but failing to note a wound.

3. The Moorman photo was on TV within hours of the shooting. It failed to depict a blow-out wound on the back of the head.

4. The early reports and testimony of the Parkland witnesses suggested, however, that the wound was on the right side of the back of the head. Some of these reports noted cerebellum, which suggested a wound on the lower part of the skull. When asked to show the location of this wound years later, however, most of these doctors placed the wound at a location inconsistent with their seeing cerebellum. After viewing the autopsy photos, for that matter, most of the key doctors deferred to their accuracy and acknowledged they'd been mistaken when they said they saw cerebellum.

5. The autopsy photos and x-rays show no defect on the back of the head, but provide other often-overlooked information suggesting there was more than one shooter, and that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

6. The autopsy report and subsequent statements of the Bethesda doctors suggest that the wound was at the top of the skull, where it is shown in the autopsy photos and x-rays. The statements of others viewing the autopsy, however, are more erratic. But this is probably as a result of their viewing the skull at different times in its deconstruction and reconstruction, and the more than decade delay in the recording of most of these witnesses' recollections.

Well, all this leads me to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are legit. It's hard to claim all the witnesses to the shooting are mistaken, and all the photographic evidence fake, based upon the early impressions of some doctors, after all, when the bulk of these doctors later admitted they'd been mistaken, and when studies indicate that emergency room personnel regularly make such mistakes. It's desperate, IMO.

It's almost understandable when one considers that so many eyewitnesses to the shooting thought one or more shots came from the front. But it still feels a bit desperate to me.

My feeling that the photos and x-rays are probably legit rises to the level of becoming a conclusion, however, whenever I consider what they reveal. It just makes no sense to me that "they" would fake evidence that proves more than one head shot.

[Greg Burnham]

Well, all this leads me to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are legit.

Elsewhere (in another thread) you wrote that you are not contesting the OD data. If that is true, how can you conclude that the x-rays are legit? After all, Dr. Chesser performed OD measurements on both JFK's pre-mortem cranial x-rays (at the JFK Library) and on his post-mortem cranial x-rays (from the archives) and they do NOT match each other!

How do you explain this?

[Greg Burnham]

Hi Sandy

The location the Harper fragment was found has always been the fly in the ointment that Lone Nut supporters have used to deny its possibility of being occipital bone. It just makes sense; how could a bone from the back of the head be found in front of the limo's position at z313?

Want to read something REALLY interesting? It's known as Warren Commission Document 298. Here is a link to it:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699

It seems the FBI believed Connally was shot in the back at about the z313 position, and the fatal head shot occurred when the limo was almost at the steps of the pergola, approximately 45 feet further down Elm St. than the z313 position (see visual aid on Page 26).

Of course, David Mantik discusses, in detail, this location for the final headshot in his e-book: John F. Kennedy's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis - and a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment

Has Speer even read it?

[Ray Mitcham]

Moorman photo, zoomed and lightened.

Seems to show a hole in the back of the President's head.

[Sandy Larsen]

It looks to me like Greg downplays the ridges that apparently should be on occipital bone (by hypothesizing that osteoporosis could have remodeled the skull), and Pat does the opposite (by posting a drawing that emphasizes the ridges).

(I don't believe Pat chose the drawing in order to trick people, but rather because the ridges can be hard to see in a photo.)

As one who had sided with Greg on this issue, I find it it disconcerting that he (or one of his doctor friends) has had to go into apology mode to keep his theory afloat. I think it is a stretch to add to it the hypothetical element of osteoporotic remodeling.

However, my position on this is far from being flipped. Because just as I see Greg in apology mode on the occipital ridge issue, Pat has long been in apology mode on the numerous medical personnel who saw the back-of-head blowout.

I've wondered if the Harper fragment was planted, in front of the limo, in order to support the single shooter theory. If anything, what I've witnessed here makes me consider that possibility more seriously.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

Hi Sandy

The location the Harper fragment was found has always been the fly in the ointment that Lone Nut supporters have used to deny its possibility of being occipital bone. It just makes sense; how could a bone from the back of the head be found in front of the limo's position at z313?

Want to read something REALLY interesting? It's known as Warren Commission Document 298. Here is a link to it:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699

It seems the FBI believed Connally was shot in the back at about the z313 position, and the fatal head shot occurred when the limo was almost at the steps of the pergola, approximately 45 feet further down Elm St. than the z313 position (see visual aid on Page 26).

Wow, that is crazy!

But maybe not so crazy after all. I mean, didn't the FBI have to watch the Zapruder film to come to these conclusions on when the shots were fired? If so, wouldn't this exhibit be a strong indicator that the Z film has since been altered? I should think so.

[Greg Burnham]

Wow, that is crazy!

But maybe not so crazy after all. I mean, didn't the FBI have to watch the Zapruder film to come to these conclusions on when the shots were fired? If so, wouldn't this exhibit be a strong indicator that the Z film has since been altered? I should think so.

Yes. And the x-rays. Which brings us right back to the medical evidence.

[Robert Prudhomme]

It looks to me like Greg downplays the ridges that apparently should be on occipital bone (by hypothesizing that osteoporosis could have remodeled the skull), and Pat does the opposite (by posting a drawing that emphasizes the ridges).

(I don't believe Pat chose the drawing in order to trick people, but rather because the ridges can be hard to see in a photo.)

As one who had sided with Greg on this issue, I find it it disconcerting that he (or one of his doctor friends) has had to go into apology mode to keep his theory afloat. I think it is a stretch to add to it the hypothetical element of osteoporotic remodeling.

However, my position on this is far from being flipped. Because just as I see Greg in apology mode on the occipital ridge issue, Pat has long been in apology mode on the numerous medical personnel who saw the back-of-head blowout.

I've wondered if the Harper fragment was planted, in front of the limo, in order to support the single shooter theory. If anything, what I've witnessed here makes me consider that possibility more seriously.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

Hi Sandy

The location the Harper fragment was found has always been the fly in the ointment that Lone Nut supporters have used to deny its possibility of being occipital bone. It just makes sense; how could a bone from the back of the head be found in front of the limo's position at z313?

Want to read something REALLY interesting? It's known as Warren Commission Document 298. Here is a link to it:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699

It seems the FBI believed Connally was shot in the back at about the z313 position, and the fatal head shot occurred when the limo was almost at the steps of the pergola, approximately 45 feet further down Elm St. than the z313 position (see visual aid on Page 26).

Wow, that is crazy!

But maybe not so crazy after all. I mean, didn't the FBI have to watch the Zapruder film to come to these conclusions on when the shots were fired? If so, wouldn't this exhibit be a strong indicator that the Z film has since been altered? I should think so.

Now you're getting it! Remember, crazy is as crazy does, and the only thing limiting us is our ability to be amazed.

NEVER stop thinking outside of the box, my friend.