Pat Speer

Finck said numerous times that when they reflected the scalp he saw a hole on the skull. He was very meticulous in his language. He would not have said he saw a hole if he meant to say he saw what he interpreted to be half a hole.

Thanks. The search continues. I've been told an effort is underway to get some medical professionals to take a look at this stuff, so maybe some progress is forthcoming.

Yes, the patch was larger than the hole, which was the size of a small orange.

Yes, that is what he said. But it wasn't what he said initially, and it it isn't consistent with the bone's being the Harper fragment.

Finck's saying there was "enough curvature" on the bone to identify it as an entrance does not mean half the entrance was missing, and found on a bone fragment delivered hours later. Nor does his stating he'd observed a portion of a crater. The bullet entered at an angle. It did not leave a nice round crater on the inside of the skull. Apparently it was half a crater and then a groove. Thus 15 by 6. And you don't need to take my word for it. In his WC testimony Finck said the defect was in an area of intact scalp, and that when they reflected the scalp away from the defect they found "a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull." in His FIRST letter to Blumberg, moreover, Finch specified that there was a "through and through wound of the occipital bone" "corresponding" to the 15 by 6 wound on the scalp. When later asked by the ARRB if the doctors put a skull fragment back in place that completed the entrance wound, he was totally perplexed, and replied "I don't remember that." (Gunn, stupidly, prefaced the question by saying Boswell had said they''d completed the hole with a fragment, which, of course, prevented Finck from saying such a thing was ludicrous, etc.) So that leaves Boswell, who said nothing about such a bone before telling Thompson it was the largest bone that was matched up. (Well it would appear from this that he'd simply misremembered the bone brought in with exit beveling that convinced them the large defects was an exit as a bone brought in that completed the entrance--something no one else remembered.) And then, of course, Boswell told the HSCA that it was the smallest bone that matched up. So, in short, there is weak evidence, at best, that a bone was brought in that matched up with the entrance, and no reason whatsoever to take from this that this bone was the Harper fragment, which was not discovered until the next day AND had exit beveling, not entrance beveling.

It was actually just one of the autopsists, Boswell. And he never said anything about this until years afterwards. And then he specified that it was the smallest of the three bone fragments brought in during the autopsy that completed the beveled entrance. Well, his recollection has been mis-represented by some to suggest the HARPER FRAGMENT!!!, which was not brought into the autopsy, or even discovered until the next day, and was far from small, AND had a lead smear at a beveled exit, was the fragment brought in that completed the entrance. And that's ridiculous. Now, Sandy is working on a theory where the Harper fragment was brought into the autopsy and then taken back to Dallas to be found, and the supposed beveled entrance was really an exit, and so on. But it's a really busy theory to no end, IMO. But at least he's trying to make the pieces fit, as opposed to those who have claimed, for years, that the Harper fragment, was the bone Boswell claimed matched up with a beveled entrance on the skull, while knowing full well that the beveling they claim matched up was exit beveling, not entrance beveling.

Well, appearances can be deceptive. The hole as first observed was greatly expanded when scalp was peeled aside and skull fell to the table. Few at Bethesda saw it in its original state. As the purpose of the reconstruction was to make JFK acceptable for a public viewing, moreover, Stroble reconstructed the skull with the missing scalp and skull at the back of the head.

I re-watched the video to copy down some quotes, and came away believing this interview was conducted on the 22nd. Why? There is no mention of Oswald's killing. As hard as it may be to believe NOW, on 11-24, Oswald's murder on 11-24 was bigger news than JFK's murder two days before. So why would a newsman interviewing a doctor at the hospital where Oswald was just pronounced dead, ask him questions about Kennedy--which was by then old news--and nothing about Oswald? The only answer is that Oswald was not dead...yet. Now the possibility exists that this interview was conducted bright and early Sunday morning...before Oswald was shot. Do we know when Cisco arrived in Dallas, Denis?

Wait. So when was this interview? Vince listed it as 11-22-63. Was it actually that Sunday, the 24th?

Thanks. And do we know where Harris found this interview? Was it in a vault somewhere?

Greetings, Denis. Any idea when the interview was conducted?

Good find. I will add some of the quotes to my website. But I think I saw some responses in which people are acting as though there is anything new here. There is not. Perry said from the first and to the last that the throat wound appeared to be an entrance wound. That in itself means almost nothing. It is not the job of a surgeon to make that determination. That is the job of a pathologist or coroner. In fact, studies have shown that the opinions of emergency room personnel as to entrance or exit on cases of multiple gunshot wounds are as good as a guess. What is significant is that he says the throat wound was small--unlikely for the exit of a high-velocity missile--and that they thought the large head wound may have been a tangential wound--meaning both that they saw no entrance anywhere else on the skull, and that the wound was larger in surface area than they would have expected. This is discussed in chapter 16b of my website and forms the foundation for my conclusion the wound was yes indeed a tangential wound...and that the entrance wound found at Bethesda represents a second shot to the head.

1. The FBI wasn't there when the skull was reconstructed, so how would they know what happened to the fragments after they left? And why would the morticians fail to avail themselves of fragments the FBI claims were present at the beginning of the reconstruction that could help them complete the skull? 2. I believe you've claimed there was legitimate beveling on the Harper fragment but no beveling on the triangular fragment. If the Harper fragment was broken off the triangular fragment, where did the beveling come from? 3. And the morticians said small orange. Robinson told this to the HSCA and Van Hoesen told this to the ARRB.

To my recollection he didn't run tests with any delay beyond 2 1/2 hours to determine how long one could expect a positive result. He decided to test at 2 1/2 hours, and received a positive result. From chapter 4f... (Note: a subsequent study by Vincent Guinn would come to demonstrate that, under laboratory conditions, gunshot residue could be found on suspects as long as 24 hours after a shooting. A similar study by S.S. Krishnan published in 1974 would similarly claim "residue can remain for up to 17h during normal activity, but can be quickly removed by vigorous scrubbing with soap and water." A second study by Krishnan published in 1977 would support this, moreover, by listing a homicide where gunshot residue was found on the hands of a suspect 24 hours after the shooting. While Oswald's odyssey after the shooting was far from what one would expect to find in a laboratory, it was also far less taxing than 17h of normal activity. As a consequence there is nothing in his saga to make one think the residue on his hands, face, and clothes that would be apparent should he have fired a rifle, would have vanished. From May 31 to June 3, 2005, the FBI crime lab held a symposium on gunshot residue analysis. One of the issues discussed was time limits, a time after which the various crime labs present at the symposium would refuse to conduct a test for gunshot residue. According to a summary of this symposium, found on the FBI's website, "Many participants stated that an acceptable cutoff time is 4 to 6 hours after the shooting event, whereas some felt that up to 8 hours was appropriate. Still others were comfortable accepting lifts taken more than 12 hours after the shooting." It was also noted that the FBI's cut-off was 5 hours. A 2006 article on Scienceevidence.com similarly notes that in Saunders v the State of Texas, Aug. 12 2006, "The State’s expert...testified that the time guideline for gunshot residue tests is four hours because of the diminished likelihood of finding the elements necessary for a positive result. The expert testified that it was possible, however, for the test to produce a positive finding even after six or eight hours, but such findings are described as inconclusive. They are not referred to as 'unreliable,' however, because the problem is the likelihood of the evidence disappearing, not the presence of a false positive." Also The acceptance of gunshot residue tests of the face has, in fact, in some ways, surpassed even that of gunshot residue tests of the hands. The Elsevier Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, published 2000, notes: "In the case of a living shooter, the gunshot residue may be removed by washing the hands; it may also be rubbed off the hands onto clothing. Because of the possibility that gunshot residue may be deliberately removed or inadvertently lost from a shooter's hands other sources of gunshot residue should be considered. Gunshot residue may be deposited on the face and hair of the shooter or on his clothing. Gunshot residue deposited in these areas will generally be retained longer than gunshot residue of the hands." This, of course, feeds back into the question of why, 8 hours after the shooting, there was plentiful residue on Oswald's hands, but so little residue on his cheek?

From chapter 18d at patspeer.com: Let's start with Father Oscar Huber, the priest who gave Kennedy his last rites. 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 year later, on November 22, 1964, researcher Shirley Martin spoke to Huber. She then reported on this discussion in an 11-24-64 letter written to fellow researcher Vincent Salandria. This letter was then quoted in Praise From a Future Generation, by John Kelin (2007). She wrote: "Saw Father Huber on Sunday...He says when he entered Emergency Room #1, he pulled the sheet just to the edge of the President's nose and then he saw what he assumed to be a bullet entry hole above the President's left eye...The next day, Father Huber says he learned that the assassin had stood behind the President, therefore negating the possibility that what he saw had been an entry bullet wound. At once, Father Huber realized that what he had seen was only a 'blood clot.'" A year and a half later, while interviewing Father Huber for his movie Rush to Judgment, Mark Lane followed up on Martin's questions, and received a similar response. (The transcript to this interview was made available by the Wisconsin Historical Society.) 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." Huber was so worried about his actions being misrepresented, for that matter, that he wrote a response to William Manchester's 1967 book The Death of a President. This response insisted "I removed, to the tip of his nose, the sheet that covered the President's head and immediately began administering the last rites of Catholic Church..." When he sent this response to researcher Stephen Davenport on 8-18-70, moreover, he included a few more details, which Davenport subsequently shared with the HSCA. In this letter, Huber claimed that when he saw Kennedy: "I saw no sign of life in him. His forehead was covered with blood--his eyes were closed as if he were asleep--I did not see any bullet holes in his face or in his forehead--as far as I could see." So, okay, Father Huber was confusing and/or confused. But it's intriguing nonetheless that his statements, when taken as a whole, suggest there was lots of blood on Kennedy's face, but no missing bone, or readily identifiable bullet hole, on his face or forehead.

1. The FBI left BEFORE the reconstruction was performed. Your claim the fragment arrived too late to be put back in during reconstruction is not supported by the evidence. 2. The Harper fragment was a roughly 2 1/2 in triangle. You agree this was not put back in the head. The triangular fragment was a 10 by 6 1/2 cm triangle, or roughly 4 by 2 1/2 in. You can't have both of these missing from the back of the head and still have a back of the head. (If you think isn't so, please demonstrate.) 3. The doctors said that with the addition of the Harper fragment, the missing skull at the time of the reconstruction was accounted for. This confirms what Van Hoesen and Robinson recalled--that the hole on the back of the head they saw was the size of a "small orange".

1. There is no other z-film. Decades later people came forward with vague claims they saw a film that was slightly different, etc. This is as expected after their viewing something once or twice and then trying to remember what they saw decades later. 2. Moorman and Hill failed to notice the first shot that struck the President, which was observed by literally dozens of witnesses, and thought the first shot was the one striking Kennedy in the head. 3. The prime proponents of Z-film alteration hold that the back of the head was painted in, and that a limo stop was edited out. Those presuming these alterations presume as much because there are witnesses whose statements can support that the back of the head was blown out and that the limo stopped. No one of any repute believes the film was edited to hide that the head shot was fired when Kennedy had just turned the corner, and that's because no credible witnesses said as much. In fact, all the witnesses noting Kennedy's reaction to the shots said that Kennedy reacted to the first shot, and was struck in the head by a subsequent shot.

Uhh, no. As presented above, this fragment is an upside down triangle. The width along the base at the top is about 35% wider than the height of the fragment, from the base to the apex, at bottom. It is thereby a perfect fit for 10 by 6.5. Secondly, the FBI agents left before the skull was reconstructed and were apparently unaware what became of the fragments. These fragments were most certainly never seen again, and Humes and Boswell later specified that they were buried with the President. And you don't have to take my word on this. Just use common sense. The hole at the back of the skull at the end of reconstruction was roughly the size of the Harper fragment, which even you agree was not added back into the skull. If the large fragment or any other large fragment was not re-inserted at that time the hole at the end of reconstruction would have been much much bigger, and would have encapsulated the entire back of the head.

There were a number of witnesses describing an explosion of blood and brain from the front or side of the head, and there were a number of witnesses viewing the left and back of JFK's head who said the explosion occurred on the other side, or that from where they were standing they just saw his hair fly up. There are, on the other had, no credible close-up witnesses claiming they were looking at the back of JFK's head and saw the back of it blown clear from his skull. I run through the closest witnesses in chapter 18c. This list of witnesses is so convincing that back of the head blow out aficionados like Lifton and Fetzer claimed those witnessing the shooting were not competent to describe the wound. Now, I know some like to pretend that those claiming JFK was shot from the front or that it hit him in the temple were claiming they saw an entrance there and just so happened to forget adding that this bullet blew out the back JFK's head. This is quite embarrassing, IMO. I mean, really, there was an explosion of blood from the front of the head that was readily visible to witnesses dozens of yards away, but the hole from which this blood exploded was not apparent to the doctors studying Kennedy's body--the doctors who immediately noticed blood spurting from his neck and the back of his head? I mean, seriously, did Jackie wipe away the blood from this hole, and fill it with chewing gum? As far as Newman...the quotes below all come from Newman, or are quotes on FBI reports on Newman... He saw an explosion from the right side of the head...obviously. We didn't realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet hit him. we seen him get shot in the side of the head. I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head. At that time he heard the bullet strike the president and saw flesh fly from the President’s head. (When asked about a drawing in which he depicted the fatal bullet's striking Kennedy by his ear) "That's what I saw. The way he was hit, it looked like he had just been hit with a baseball pitch, just like a block of wood fell over his... (When it was pointed out to him that he was moving his head backwards and to the left, and his drawing had depicted a wound by the ear) "In my opinion the ear went." (When asked again if his impression was that the bullet entered the side of the head) "Right. Right. My thoughts were that the shot entered there and apparently the thoughts of the Warren Commission were that the shot came out that side.” that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off… I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red, just as the President's car got directly in front of me, the President was probably fifteen feet away, Boom, and the side of his ear flew off, and justa, bits and pieces flew off. I can remember seeing just a white flash, and then the red, and the President fell across the car I can remember seeing the side of the President’s ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and red and just bits and pieces of flesh exploding from the President’s head. he got nearer to us, and, bam, a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off. I remember seeing the side of his head come off. I could see the white and then all of a sudden the red... (When asked if it hit him in the temple) "It appeared yes right in this area here (as he motions to his right temple) on the side of his head" I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. There was black matter and then grayish It appeared to me that it hit him on the side of the head, as the side of his head came off. I thought the shot came from directly behind us in the grassy knoll area. The only basis I had for that was what I visually saw: the President going across the car and seeing the side of his head come off. I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head come off, and I thought his ear came off. I was kinda dumbfounded to hear these people saying that, when just minutes earlier I'd seen the side of his head come off." It was the visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise--seeing the side of the President's head blow off I knew most definitely that was a gunshot and the side of his head blew off, you could see the white matter and the red and he fell across the seat I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. I could see a mass of white and then the blood and fragments. I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head fly off, Ten, 12 feet in front of us, the third shot rang out, and that's when the side of his head flew off Seeing the side of the President's head blow off, seeing the president go across the car seat into Mrs. Kennedy's lap, in her direction, it gave me the sensation that the shots were coming from directly behind me the third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's head blew off (as he says this he reaches for his temple). We seen the brain matter and the blood fly off. P.S. He was wearing his watch on his left wrist on 11-22-63, and he pointed out the wound with his left hand when he was holding his kid, and right arm when he was not holding his kid. He also claimed he thought the shots came from directly behind him, and he was standing to the right of Kennedy. So it's incredibly obvious the side of the head he saw explode was the right side, and not the left side. .

Governor Connally viewed the Zapruder film multiple times and placed the first shot around Z-190, when the limo was far from the corner. He later marked the location of the limo at the time of the first shot on an overhead photo, and marked it where the limo was around Z-224. He also insisted he heard but two shots, with the first shot being the one that, according to his wife, led Kennedy to reach for his neck, and the second one (which he did not hear) hitting himself, and a third one striking Kennedy in the head and showering the car with blood and brain matter. His statements are of no support for your theory Kennedy was hit in the head just as he turned the corner, and are actually strong evidence against it.

If you read Humes and Boswell's interview with the HSCA, you will find that they claimed they did not see the Harper fragment on the night of the autopsy, and that they were looking at a number of photos and x-rays including the x-ray of the three fragments when Boswell said that the smaller fragment completed the entrance hole. As Humes had said, shortly before that, that the entrance wound on the skull was just below the small entrance wound on the scalp, moreover, it's clear he did not believe they needed a second fragment to complete the entrance hole, and most certainly did not believe half the hole was missing and present on a fragment they did not see that evening.

Ok. Since Dr. Boswell's fourteen years later claim a piece of bone was brought in to complete the entrance hole near the EOP, has been so wildly misrepresented, I thought I would remind people of what he actually said. During their meeting with the HSCA doctors Boswell and Humes were discussing how far they had to cut to get to the small entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head. Then Boswell said: "not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment (of the fragments x-rayed on the night of the autopsy) fit this piece down here--there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact, and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface." So he specified that it was a small fragment--and not the large fragment--that completed this hole. Well, that sinks Randy Robertson's claim he was talking about the large fragment, and that it matched up with the cowlick entrance. (If I remember his theory correctly) And this fragment was brought into the autopsy. Well, that sinks Dr. Mantik's claim it was the Harper fragment, which was not brought into the autopsy. Now, should one convince oneself the Harper fragment WAS brought into the autopsy, one still has to overcome that Humes and Boswell claimed they were unaware of the Harper fragment's existence on 11-22-63, and that Boswell specified that it was the smallest fragment that completed the entrance hole. Well, this rules out the Harper fragment, as it was anything but small.

Well I think we can agree that the three headshot theory is questionable. I went back recently and watched a number of Mantik/Horne/Chesser presentations and was astounded by how weird and weak their arguments for three headshots were. To simplify... Shot #1: EOP entrance as described by the autopsy doctors and confirmed by the lead smear on the Harper fragment near the EOP when the fragment is placed in Mantik's orientation. No known exit for this bullet. No evidence this bullet was ever found. (Their theory is in trouble from the get-go. All credible experts on skull anatomy have concluded the Harper fragment is parietal bone and NOT occipital bone, and that's not even to mention that the beveling at the site of the lead smear Mantik claims to be an entrance is EXIT beveling and not entrance beveling.) Shot #2: Entrance near the temple above the right ear. Blow-out exit on back of skull above EOP entrance that apparently left no exit beveling on Harper fragment or surrounding skull, or even a trail of fragments within the skull. (Now, this is what I mean by weird. There are actually two ways they could support an entrance in this location. One is to cite James Jenkins' recollection of an entrance defect in this location, and Two is to note there is beveling on the Harper fragment in this location when placed in Angel's orientation. But as they describe this wound in their presentations, they offer no support in the physical evidence for this proposed bullet's entrance... or its exit.) Shot #3: Entrance high on right forehead. Exit on left side of back of skull. (Now this is a bullet trajectory connecting an entrance observed by no one at Parkland and Bethesda and an exit observed by no one at Parkland or Bethesda. So there's lot of serious stretching performed to shore this one up. The exit, they claim, can be deduced from the beveling on the back of the head in the mystery photo...when placed in Mantik's obviously incorrect orientation for the photo (I proved this was incorrect in my video series 15 years ago only to have Mantik respond by concealing the features used to establish a proper orientation from his audience.) As far as the entrance...They cite witnesses such as Tom Robinson--who said he saw, first, a small wound by the temple that was not a bullet's entrance, and, second, two or three small wounds on the cheek that were not a bullet entrance. And yet they turn around and claim his recollections of small wounds by the temple or cheek that were not bullet entrances as evidence for a bullet entrance high on the forehead. Now, that's bad enough, but the other witnesses they cite are even worse. They cite Joe O'Donnell's claim he was shown a photo of a bullet hole on the forehead in a photo when they know damn well that he was suffering from dementia and making all sorts of obviously false claims about the Kennedys when he said this AND that the photographer who'd supposedly shown him this photo was not even present at the autopsy, according to everyone present at the autopsy. AND they cite Dennis David's claim he was shown a similar photo by someone who everyone at the autopsy says was not even present at the autopsy.(Now, the thought occurs that there was a bootleg set of photos which made the rounds at Bethesda, and that O'Donnell and David were in fact shown these photos, and mis-remembered one of these photos--most likely the stare-of-death photo--as showing a bullet hole on the forehead. But the thought they were shown photos of the body--which no one at the autopsy recalled taking--showing a wound upon the body--which no one viewing the body recalled seeing--is quite a stretch.) In any event, Mantik has more recently added onto these negligible witnesses by claiming the Parkland doctors saying they saw some blood by the left temple (essentially Marrion Jenkins, but he means Robert McClelland as well even though he specified he did not see the blood pointed out by Jenkins) were confused and REALLY meant to say they saw a bullet hole high on the right forehead. Never mind that these men were interviewed many many times and never said anything to suggest the blood was really a hole and the left temple was really the right forehead. And, oh yeah, there's James Jenkins, who claimed he saw an entrance wound by the temple--where Mantik, Chesser, and Horne claim there was a wound--but who Horne, in JFK: What the Doctors Saw, claims was really describing a bullet hole high on the forehead. (So, yes, there are four witnesses--Robinson, Jenkins, Jenkins, and McClelland--who said something about a temple, only to have Mantik and Horne collectively claim they were probably talking about a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye.) Anyhow, this bring us to Chesser, who thinks he's found evidence on the lateral x-rays to support there was such a hole in the right forehead. Now I kinda think Chesser is an innocent, in that he readily admits he is not an expert on radiology and he readily admits there is no sign of a bullet hole--no hole, no fractures-- on the forehead on the A-P x-ray, which would be the x-ray one would study when looking for a bullet hole on the forehead. And, oh yeah, lest we forget, Mantik cites the trail of fragments on the x-rays as support for bullet #3...because the fragments are in a relatively straight line high on the skull and start forward of the temple entrance. Now, this almost makes sense. But let's note what's missing. While he conjures up a third bullet to explain the trail of fragments on the x-rays, he offers no explanation whatsoever for the large hole on the frontal bone and parietal bone apparent on the x-rays. Yes. he has repeatedly claimed the large fragment brought into the autopsy was frontal bone, and has long-confirmed that frontal bone is missing on the x-rays along with parietal bone in the vicinity of the trail of fragments. But he offers no explanation for this in his presentations. And I think it's because Horne is stuck on the idea NO frontal bone or parietal bone was missing from the front and top of the head prior to Dr. Humes removing this bone during a pre-surgery witnessed by Ed Reed... Even though Ed Reed specified that what he witnessed--Humes opening up the head--took place AFTER the x-rays had been taken--the x-rays Mantik has confirmed show missing frontal bone and parietal bone. The three headshot theory is a freakin' mess, IMO.

A couple of quick points... The "triangular fragment" was nicknamed as such by Randy Robertson, based upon his viewing of the x-rays of this fragment. Your using this description to imply the "triangular fragment" is a different fragment from the 10 by 6.5 cm fragment is ill-founded, as the proportions of the fragment on the x-ray are that of the fragment described in the FBI's report. The fragments are one and the same. Stavis Ellis's statement to an interviewer about a child picking up a fragment and throwing it in the limo was his trying to recall what he'd heard, and not a precise recollection of his own. It was not sworn testimony, or even a statement he'd made in a personal account. It was blathering. And his tendency to blather about the assassination was mocked even by his own family, as Bill and Gayle Newman (Ellis's niece) laughed about his stories getting juicier and juicier in an interview with the Sixth Floor Museum. Should one accept Ellis' story, moreover, it would mean that every other eyewitness to the shooting lied, as none of them mentioned a long stop of the limo, a child picking up a bone fragment within seconds of the shooting, or even a Secret Service man's being in the Plaza. I mean, think about it. How would Ellis, should he have witnessed this supposed incident, from 50 years away or so, have known the man taking the fragment from the child was a Secret Service agent? This was clearly a story he'd pieced together, years after the shooting, that incorporated authentic elements such as a bone fragment being found by a young person, and someone identifying himself as a Secret Service agent in the aftermath of the shots. It was never intended to be written down as an authentic recollection of Ellis', as something he witnessed himself. I mean, he was interviewed by the HSCA and said all sorts of things, but nothing like this.

We have questions. Why do you keep avoiding that the Dealey Plaza witnesses to the right of Kennedy such as the Newmans, Zapruder, Jackson, Sitzman, and Hudson, said they saw a large wound on the top right side of the head, while the witnesses to the left of Kennedy said they saw his hair rise up or an explosion on the far side of his head? And that essentially none of the credible witnesses said they saw a wound on the far back of his head, where you place it? What is the size of the large fragment on the x-rays? Many have studied it and have concluded that it is the 10 by 6.5 fragment described by the FBI, and has the beveling described by the autopsy doctors. Your claim it is not that fragment is a novel one. So what is the size of this fragment and what is the beveling on the fragment? If I am following you correctly then you are claiming the Harper fragment was the actual 10 x 6.5 cm fragment brought into the autopsy. Is that right? And, if so, can you show us how a fragment that large would fit onto the back of the head? And explain how and why was it broken up and made smaller? And, additionally, who found the Harper Fragment on 11-22? Who flew it to Washington? And who returned it the next day?