Pat Speer

The reporting on the wounds for the first few months in particular was atrocious. No official reports were released, so reporters simply wrote whatever they heard through the grapevine or whatever made sense to them. A classic example is the Boston Globe on 11-23.. The only wounds they knew about were on the back of the head and on the throat--the wounds discussed at Parkland. But they realized JFK was past the depository when shot. So they simply reported that the bullet entered the back of the head (in opposition to Clark's assertion this wound was not an entrance) and exited the throat (in opposition to Perry's description of the wound as an entrance.) They did this on their own. I have also found examples where articles were re-written between the morning and evening editions to accommodate something said by Connally. They were winging it. I did find some evidence suggesting there was government manipulation of the story. Beyond the FBI, that is. Even before the Life Mag article making out JFK turned around to receive his throat wound, newspaper articles had appeared claiming as much. These cited official sources. So someone in Washington wanted it out that although the throat wound was an entrance there was no cause for alarm. This wasn't the FBI because they had a different story--that the throat wound was the exit of a fragment.

Kennedy's head was tilted forward at Z-312. A bullet on a descent slightly greater than this forward tilt and impacting above his ear would not make a neat round hole, as it would encounter much more resistance--think of someone trying to karate chop a 2 by 4 on the end down the length of the board instead of across the board. In any event this increased resistance would lead the bullet to rupture, while tearing a huge hole at the impact location. Fragments of this bullet would then be scattered at both this location and further down the road from the target. And skull fragments would fly into the air. After years of research, It seems obvious to me that's what happened. Well this, of course, leaves the EOP entrance unaccounted for. It is a second entrance., which I have come to suspect leads to the small throat wound.

You're on the right track. People have heard "entrance small exit big" so many times they think it applies to the size of fractures as well as the size of defects. But it's the reverse. The fracture size is related to amount of energy expended, so a bullet will normally create larger fractures at entrance than at exit. If a bullet tumbles while intact, of course, it can exit sideways at a sufficient velocity to create a larger fracture at exit. But the HSCA's ballistics expert claimed the bullet exited intact and that the large exit was caused by the expansion of the brain, and not by the impact of the bullet on the inside of the skull upon exit. Well, for this to have happened, the large fractures would need to be in a spider-web pattern leading back to the cowlick. They do not. He was blowing smoke. In 2013, for what's worse, a forensic pathologist in Boston came forward and announced that there was a spider-web pattern--only leading back to the EOP entrance. That's right. He said the massive fractures near the top of the skull all started at an entrance by the EOP low on the back of the skull. Well, no such fractures were noted at the autopsy. So why all the bs? The large fractures at the top of the head designate it as an impact location. Period. They are scientific proof that the EOP entrance described at autopsy represents a second impact location, and thus two headshots. It's textbook. 101. Basic stuff. And all this mumbo jumbo about the x-rays being fake is just a distraction.

More flailing. If you had read the chapters you'd know I present drawings to support my arguments. As far as the EOP entrance... the Clark Panel used the lack of lower brain damage to refute the low entrance/high exit trajectory pushed by the autopsy doctors and WC. So they conjured up a higher entrance. Neither they nor any of their disciples have made the argument the brain photos preclude a low entrance/even lower exit. If you're claiming to have done so, please present your work...

Elements of the report were shared with the Parkland doctors and leaked to the press within a few days of the shooting. So there's nothing to indicate it was changed afterwards. But we have every reason to suspect Humes' original draft was at odds with the single-assassin solution, and was tossed into the fire after Oswald's death.

One can not differentiate metal fragments as to caliber based on x-rays. It is true, however, that certain types of bullets are more likely to leave a trail of fragments than others, and that 6.5 FMJ bullets would not normally leave a trail of fragments between a small entrance and small exit. Yes, I wrote small exit. The HSCA FPP tried to claim it was a small exit that was subsequently blown out by the temporary cavity. But this is make-believe. The only rational explanation for the skull fracture pattern and bullet fragment pattern apparent on the X-rays is that the fatal bullet struck the supposed exit location at an angle, and created a large wound of both entrance and exit.

Are you out to set some kind of record? 1. You need to realize that images on x-rays are 2-d, and that it is impossible to tell from an A-P view where an object is on a lateral view. This is Radiology 101. First chapter in a textbook. First day of class. So one can not say a fragment not visible on the back the head on a lateral x-ray is at the back of the head on an A-P X-ray. That's just bonkers. 2 + 2 = 5. What one CAN say is that a large fragment apparent high on the head on an A-P view has no obvious partner on the back of the head on a lateral view. In such case, then, one SHOULD look to where the doctors said they found the largest fragment--BEHIND the right eye. I did just that, and guess what, there lies a fragment. And no, you can't rule out that the fragment in the FBI photo is the fragment on the x-rays. 2. When one reads radiology text books one finds that they address some of the frequent mistakes of x-ray techs and that one of these mistakes results in a white round spot on the finished image. Such spots are attributed to drops of fixer, not acid. So, no, the film is not burned. While I have never pushed this as an explanation for the shape on JFK's A-P x-ray, I mention it to expose one of the many flaws in Mantik's methodology. Here is a common mistake often discussed in textbooks, that addresses otherwise unexplained white round and oval shapes--that is not mentioned by Mantik in his papers, even in passing. This is not a coincidence, IMO. It seems obvious he doesn't want his readers to know that radiologists encounter white spots in every day life, and attribute such spots to a mistake in development. He wants people to believe he has made this great find, and that the white spot on JFK's A-P x-ray can ONLY be explained by some giant conspiracy. Please.

A timeline on the events following Oswald's death proves helpful. From Chapter 1 at patspeer.com At 2:40 PM, in the Executive Office Building, President Johnson met with some of his top advisers. The schedule of this meeting notes that first to arrive were Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and that CIA Director John McCone, Ambassador to Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge, and Undersecretary of State George Ball soon followed. The topic of this meeting: the war in Vietnam. Although this meeting lasted less than an hour, it nevertheless marked a significant event in the history of that war, and of the world, as LBJ made it clear he was no JFK and would be willing to stomach what Kennedy had made clear he would not stomach--an increased American involvement in the war. It's clear then that, on 11-24-64, within minutes of his predecessor's assassin being assassinated on television, Johnson was moving on to bigger and better things. And he wasn't alone... At 4:00 PM EST, LBJ aide Walter Jenkins created a memo for the record in which he quoted FBI Director Hoover on the shooting. It reads, in part: "Last night we received a call in our Dallas office from a man talking in a calm voice saying he was a member of a committee organized to kill Oswald. We at once notified the Chief of Police and he assured us Oswald would be given sufficient protection...However, this was not done...Ruby says no one was associated with him and denies having made the telephone call to our Dallas office last night...he guessed his grief over the killing of his President made him insane. That was a pretty smart move on his part because it might lay the foundation for a plea of insanity later. I dispatched to Dallas one of my top assistants in hope he might stop the Chief of Police and his staff from doing so damned much talking on television. They really did not have a case against Oswald until we gave them our information... Oswald had been saying he wanted John Abt as his lawyer and Abt, with only that kind of evidence, could have turned the case around, I'm afraid. All the talking down there might have required a change of venue...The thing I am most concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin ...We have no information on Ruby that is firm, although there are some rumors of underworld activity in Chicago." The Katzenbach mentioned by Hoover is Nicholas Katzenbach. Since Robert Kennedy has stepped aside to take care of his family, Katzenbach has assumed his duties as Attorney General. And yet Katzenbach has expressed no interest in pursuing Kennedy's enemies--those who might have both a reason to kill Kennedy, and a relationship with Ruby. No, strange as it may seem, Katzenbach's primary concern is with the public's attitude towards Oswald. An 11-24-63 internal memo from Alan Belmont to Clyde Tolson of the FBI reflects that "At 4:15 PM Mr. Deloach advised that Katzenbach wanted to put out a statement, 'We are now persuaded that Oswald killed the President, however, the investigation by the Department of Justice and the FBI is continuing." According to Belmont, Deloach was opposed to the idea. In any event, no such statement was issued. But that didn't stop Katzenbach from trying to rush something, anything, out before the public that might quiet the murmurs of conspiracy. Another Walter Jenkins memo from this date (this one to President Johnson and found in the Johnson Library) reflects that Katzenbach had begun calling up Johnson's allies (such as Congressman Homer Thornberry) and had begun petitioning them to ask the President that something be done. Jenkins reports: "Homer Thornberry called and said substantially as follows: 'I have talked with Nick Katzenbach and he is very concerned that everyone know that Oswald was guilty of the President's assassination. Oswald is dead and the newspapers are wanting to know if he was really the one that killed the President. Katzenbach recommended that consideration be given to appointing a Presidential Commission such as the ex-Supreme Court Justice Whitaker, former Court of Appeals Judge Prettyman and someone like Dewey, to make it non-partisan. The Presidential Commission would then study the evidence and make a finding. Katzenbach thinks this would be much preferable to a Congressional inquiry and I do too.' Homer called back a little later and said Katzenbach called him again to be sure that his message had been delivered and Homer thinks in the light of what all the commentators are saying now, prompt consideration should be given to some action. Homer says that Howard K. Smith and the others are now saying we don't know if Oswald really committed the crime and perhaps we will never know." Let's refresh. At the time of his death, Oswald had never confessed. In fact, he'd declared himself a patsy. No one could identify him as the shooter. The paraffin test of his cheek had come up negative. Several witnesses had stated that either shots were fired from someplace other than the school book depository where he worked or that men had raced out of the back of the depository building after the shots had been fired. The films of the assassination had not been studied. The First Lady, the Connallys, and some of the closest witnesses in the motorcade had not been interviewed. No motive for Oswald's purported act had been established. And there was something odd about his trip to Mexico... Even so, some of those tasked with investigating Kennedy's killing thought it time to call it quits. Captain Fritz was quoted as saying that, with Oswald's death "the case is cleared." An AP dispatch from this day found in the archives of assassination researcher Harold Weisberg is even more problematic. It reads: "DIST. ATTY. HENRY WADE SAID TODAY THAT HE WILL NOT DIVULGE ANY MORE OF THE EVIDENCE OFFICERS HAVE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD. OSWALD WAS ACCUSED OF KILLING PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND WAS HIMSELF SLAIN TODAY. POLICE REFERRED ALL SUCH INQUIRIES FOR RELEASE OF EVIDENCE TO WADE. ASKED IF HE WOULD MAKE THE COMPLETE EVIDENCE PUBLIC, WADE SAID: "NO. WE HAD PLENTY OF EVIDENCE TO CONVICT OSWALD. FINGERPRINTS AND EVERYTHING. BUT I'VE TOLD THE POLICE, AND THE POLICE HAVE COOPERATED VERY WELL, THAT THE OSWALD CASE IS MOOT NOW AND WE HAVE TO GET ON WITH THE RUBY CASE." Wade's refusal to go through the evidence, and pile even more dirt on the not-yet buried Oswald's corpse, however, was not appreciated by everyone. An 11-24 article by Anthony Lewis, found in the next day's New York Times, headlined "OFFICIALS DISTURBED," and reported "Federal officials, convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of President Kennedy, were considering tonight appropriate ways to let the public see the evidence." Apparently, one of the ways deemed "appropriate" was to have the Dallas FBI go through the evidence against Oswald for the press, and misrepresent a fact or two. An 11-25 New York Times article recounting the evidence against Oswald reported that the paraffin tests showed "particles of gunpowder from a weapon, probably a rifle, on Oswald's cheek and hands." This, of course, was untrue. The results were negative for Oswald's cheek. Disturbingly, the Times article said this information came from Gordon Shanklin, Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas FBI. Meanwhile, at Bethesda Naval Hospital, at 5:00 PM EST, Dr. James J. Humes turned in the final draft of the President's autopsy report. He'd concluded, after conferring with Dr. Perry the day before and discovering that a small throat wound had been obliterated by a tracheotomy incision, that one bullet entered the President's back and exited his throat, and that a second bullet entered low on the back of the President's skull, broke into pieces, and exited from the top of the right side of his skull. A short time later, during a 5:55 PM EST phone call with Whitney Young, Director of the National Urban League, President Johnson hatched a plan. After Johnson complained "Well, I've got to get this funeral behind me and I've got all these heads of state coming," Young suggested that in his upcoming statements Johnson should "point out that...with the death of President Kennedy...that hate anywhere that goes unchecked doesn't stop just for the week." This got Johnson thinking on ways he could exploit Kennedy's death. He told Young "Dedicate a whole page on Hate... hate international... hate domestic...and just say that this hate that produces inequality, this hate that produces poverty... that's why we've got to have a tax bill... the hate that produces injustice... that's why we've got to have civil rights... it's a cancer that just eats at our national existence." Apparently, the only conspirator Johnson seemed interested in pursuing was hate. Not everyone shared his disinterest. Oswald's brother Robert, who'd been taken into protective custody by the Secret Service, along with Oswald's wife, mother, and children, would later relate that in the immediate aftermath of the assassination: "I began to realize there was some difficulty between the Secret Service and the FBI...Gradually the reports and rumors from various sources seemed to fit together. As early as Friday night, I had heard some speculation about the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of the President...On Saturday and Sunday there were rumors in Dallas that the "conspiracy" might involve some Government agency. By Sunday night, I realized that the agency under greatest suspicion was the FBI." (Lee: a Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald by His Brother, published 1967) Hmmm... Perhaps this suspicion had something to do with Johnson's decision to use the FBI as his private police department. A note from presidential aide Clifton Carter to Johnson on this evening reflects that he'd just spoken to Texas Attoney General Waggoner Carr, and that Carr had expressed a willingness to create a court of inquiry that "could be used to clear up any question about the Oswald case in Dallas. He said the FBI could conduct this hearing through him in any manner they cared to complete the record on Oswald." To this Johnson added: "Good idea, but purely a state matter. Can't say President asked for it." Well, this reveals both Johnson's desire to personally oversee the investigation of Kennedy's death, through the FBI, and his even greater desire to hide this desire from the public. And this isn't just conjecture. Within Harold Weisberg's Archives, now housed at Hood University, are a number of Dallas FBI documents not initially sent to the National Archives, and never reviewed by the Warren Commission. These documents were provided Weisberg as a result of one of his many Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. Well, one of the documents provided Weisberg, and little noted by others, is an 11-24-63 memo to file by Inspector James Malley. Malley wrote: "At approximately 8:50 PM, this date, Assistant to the Director Belmont advised that the Director has talked to the President again and the President approved the idea that we make a report showing the evidence conclusively tying Oswald in as the assailant of President Kennedy. In addition, the President wants to make a report on the killing today of Oswald by Ruby...The Director stated that the President feels there will be considerable pressure on both of these matters in the next day or so, and consequently desired that both reports be furnished to the Dept. of Justice this Tuesday. The Director noted that this would be a burden, but that we would have to put as many men as possible on at this time." Feel free to get suspicious at this time...

All this is covered on my website--y'know the one you've supposedly read but have apparently failed to absorb, or even slightly understand. I mean, it's gotten beyond ridiculous. Post after post in which you make inaccurate claims and present ignorant assumptions as fact, and attack me for failing to consider blank, when I discuss blank in detail on my website, and have discussed blank on this forum, and in presentations, and in personal meetings and phone calls with the likes of Aguilar, Thompson, Wecht, and Newman. Read the website, for real. While you can disagree with my conclusions, you will undoubtedly learn more from my website than from the crap you've been reading. From Chapter 17: The Final Moments Since a bullet shooting down the neck at Z-224 would have brushed past the cerebellum, I decided to look back through the literature to see if there was any indication something like this occurred. I found that when discussing the brain photos with the ARRB in 1996, Dr. Humes acknowledged, “the right cerebellum has been partially disrupted, yes.” I also found that Dr. Peters, one of the President’s doctors in Dallas, was shown the autopsy photos in 1988 and shared Humes’ appraisal. He wrote writer Harry Livingstone that “the cerebellum was indeed depressed on the right side compared to the left.” I then recalled the HSCA’s declaration that “the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum” was “virtually intact…It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report.” This time, however, I noticed the qualifiers. They said “virtually intact,” which indicates some damage. They also said there was certainly not the degree of damage necessary to be consistent with the autopsy report. Well, this makes sense. The bullet trajectory suggested by the autopsy report, after all, has the bullet heading straight into the cerebellum. These statements by the HSCA Pathology Panel, then, led me to believe the damage apparent on the cerebellum is consistent with a bullet’s having headed down into the neck. Dr. Humes certainly thought a bullet caused this damage. When interviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel on 9-16-77, and asked by Dr. Coe if he thought the "destruction" apparent on the underside of the brain was a "post-mortem artifact" from the removal of the brain, or was caused by the bullet, Humes responded "I think it was partly caused by the bullet." And it appears that he wasn't the only doctor present at the autopsy, to subsequently study the autopsy photos, to say as much. On page 159 of his book The Death of a President, published 1967, William Manchester reports: "The last bullet has torn through John Kennedy's cerebellum, the lower part of his brain." Well, so what? Who the heck is Manchester? He could just be repeating nonsense he read in the paper. Well, this is what. Manchester's book was authorized by the Kennedy family. It was supposed to answer a lot of the questions. As a result, Manchester was given unparalleled access. Including access to doctors speaking with nobody, and I mean nobody, else. The Sources section of his book lists 5 interviews with Kennedy's physician, Dr. Burkley, between October 1964 and July 1966. Burkley inspected the autopsy photos in 1965. Did Burkley tell Manchester the cerebellum was damaged? We can assume so. Upon re-reading the supplementary autopsy report from 12-6-63, moreover, I noticed that there were seven slices of tissue removed from the brain for microscopic examination, including one from the “right cerebellar cortex.” I then noticed that the other six were all from areas reported to be damaged. When I re-read the report I realized that a line I had read many times meant something completely different than I’d previously believed. The report states “When viewed from the basilar aspect the disruption of the right cortex is again obvious.” As “the basilar aspect” means “underneath” and “cortex” means “outer layer,” this is quite possibly a reference to the cerebellum as well as the cerebrum. The results of the microscopic examination of the brain confirm, furthermore, that the cerebellum was damaged: “Multiple sections from representative areas as noted above are examined. All sections are essentially similar and show extensive disruption of brain tissue with associated hemorrhage.” Later, during his March 16, 1964 testimony before the Warren Commission, Humes confirmed yet again that the cerebellum was damaged. He noted that "the flocculus cerebri was extensively lacerated." There is no flocculus cerebri. There is however, a flocculus cerebelli. It is on the underside of the cerebellum. While some researchers insist Humes meant to say the "falx cerebri," a covering of the brain, was extensively lacerated, it seems obvious that he would be much more likely to say (or have mis-recorded by a court reporter) "cerebri" instead of "cerebelli" than he would be to say (or have mis-recorded) "flocculus" instead of "falx". There's also this. In Dr. Michael Chesser's appearance at the 2018 JFK Lancer Conference--an appearance designed to raise questions about the authenticity of the brain handled by autopsy assistant James Jenkins on November 22, 1963, and the brain photos currently in the archives--he nevertheless admitted that the photos he'd viewed at the archives revealed a "tiny sliver hanging loose" from the underside of the right cerebellum. Now, Chesser knew this observation did nothing to help sell his theory the brain photos are fakes, so we can probably presume it was accurate. At the risk of pulling a Lattimer--who foolishly tried to link Kennedy’s movements after first struck to something he described as a Thorburn’s response--let's examine, then, the possibility the President’s behavior after frame 224 in the Zapruder film can be explained by his suffering damage to the flocculus in particular, and the cerebellum in general. Neuroanatomy: An Atlas of Structures, Sections, and Systems (2004) holds that lesions involving the flocconobular lobe result in "truncular ataxia (an impairment of the ability to perform smoothly coordinated voluntary movements), nystagmus (a condition in which the patient suffers involuntary eye movements) and head tilting." Similarly, Neuroscience in Medicine (2008), holds that "damage to the flocculus, nodulus, and uvula result in a pronounced loss in equilibrium, including truncal ataxia..." The description continues: "There is an inability to incorporate vestibular information with body and eye movements." Well, thankfully, Wisegeek.com helps put this in layman's terms: "Damage to the flocculus can cause jerky eye movements and difficulty maintaining balance." Now this is quite interesting. Kennedy appears to reach for his neck, but miss, and then lean to his left in the frames after Zapruder frame 224. Here is a Gif put together by Robert Harris, in which the awkward actions of Kennedy's arms are revealed. An observation by Dr. William Kemp Clark contained in Warren Commission Exhibit 392 becomes relevant at this point. When describing Kennedy's appearance upon treatment at Parkland Hospital, he noted: "His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present." Well, it seems more than a coincidence then that numerous scientific articles cite a correlation between damage to the flocculus and downbeat nystagmus, in which the eyes drift slowly upward, before returning to their target. Neurological Differential Diagnosis, 2005, goes even further, moreover, and notes both that the "flocculo-occulomotor tract" has "the only direct cerebellar connection with the eye muscle nuclei" and that "clinical lesions and stimulation experiments" of the cerebellum may "result in a divergence of the eyes." Well, let's put it together. Damage to the flocculus can cause a divergence of the eyes. Well, then what about damage to the cerebellum in general, as opposed to damage specific to the flocculus? According to multiple sources, including Dr. Gordon Holmes in the December 1917 issue of Brain, the symptoms of cerebellar damage include a weakness to the side of the body suffering the damage (ipsilateral hypotonia), a tendency to not stop a movement at its proper point (dysmetria), an inability to grasp objects (ataxia), an abnormal head attitude, and disturbances in speech, eye movement, and equilibrium. Between Zapruder frame 224, when the President seems to suffer a wound on his throat, and 313, when he is obviously hit in the head, the President reached in the direction of his throat without grabbing anything, lifted his arms past his throat, slumped to his left (perhaps as over-compensation for the sudden weakness on his right), and stared down without letting out so much as a scream.Ironically, a November 24, 1963 article in the New York Times by Dr. Howard Rusk described this very phenomenon. Mistakenly believing the theory proposed by the Dallas doctors on the afternoon of the 22nd, that one shot hit Kennedy in the throat and exploded out the back of his head, Dr. Rusk explained brain injuries as follows: “If the injury is in the posterior portion of the brain, where the bullet that killed the President made its exit, the cerebellum is damaged. Then the individual is left with ataxia, evidenced by severe intention type of tremors that occur when one tries to perform a basic act or grasp an object. Damage to the cerebellum is also usually accompanied by a loss of equilibrium." Should one not be entirely satisfied with the explanation that Kennedy's strange movements were brought about by damage to his cerebellum, however, there is an additional explanation for his movements that can be added into the mix. This explanation, moreover, is equally suggestive he was struck in the skull before frame 313 of the Zapruder film. Since Brock’s Injuries of the Brain and Spinal Cord (1974) made note that “Posterior basilar fractures tend to gravitate towards the large foramina”, I decided to see if there were any behavioral symptoms for a fracture in this area. And I found something which again dropped my jaw. (My jaw has been dropped so many times during this investigation that it's a wonder it hasn't been broken.) Jugular Foramen Syndrome is described by Blakiston’s Pocket Medical Dictionary as “Paralysis of the ipsilateral glossopharyngeal, vagus, and spinal accessory nerves, caused by a lesion involving the jugular foramen, usually a basilar skull fracture.” According to the online article Craniofacial and Skull Base Trauma by Dr. Harry Shahinian and the Skull Base Institute the paralysis of the vagus nerve would manifest itself through a paralysis of the vocal cords, and a paralysis of the spinal accessory nerves would manifest itself through a paralysis of the neck muscle that flexes the head (the sternocleidomastoid) as well as a weakness of the trapezius muscle, which rotates it. The result is a “weakness in contralateral head rotation and shoulder elevation.” Contralateral, of course, means affecting the opposite side of the body. As we know all too well, Kennedy turned toward his left and dipped his left shoulder in his final silent moments. So, yeah, I'd say there's good reason to suspect Kennedy's cerebellum and/or posterior skull was damaged even before he'd received his fatal wound.

You're just flailing. It's embarrassing. Your arguments are pure nonsense. 1. Sturdivan said he suspected the A-P fragment was an artifact--NOT real, and NOT on the back of the head. 2. I never said anything about a stray disc. This is a deliberate straw man argument designed to conceal that Mantik is simply out to lunch on a number of issues--in this case that the fragment in the archives should be the same size and shape as the fragment renamed at autopsy. He failed to do the homework. The original fragment was broken up for testing.

FWIW, I have made presentations on the crime scene in which I used the DPD.s manuals as evidence. According to the DPD's own manuals, Lt. Day and Det. Studebaker were supposed to file reports on their crime scene investigation on the 22nd, and a number of follow-ups over the next few days. As I recall, moreover, their superiors were supposed to collate and summarize their reports for Fritz and Curry, None of these reports exist, if they were ever created. Their explanation would no doubt be that the FBI interfered in their investigation so they just didn't bother, but a defense attorney would have slashed his to pieces should Oswald have come to trial.

From chapter 8 at patspeer.com Sandra Sue Elerson (11-25-63 FBI report based upon an 11-24-63 interview, CD5, p. 433) "On November 22, 1963, she was assigned for work by the Kelly Girl service at the MacMillan Company in the Texas School Book Depository Building...When the President's motorcade passed the Texas School Book Depository building, Mrs. Elerson stated that she was looking out the third floor window on the south side of the building. She saw the President turn the corner at Elm. She failed to hear any shots fired." (2-18-64report by the Dallas Police Criminal Intelligence Section on Sandra Sue Kramer AKA Sandra Sue Ellison) "Subject stated that she was on the third floor of the Texas School Book Depository standing at the north window at the time President Kennedy was shot. She stated that she heard the noise but did not realize it was shooting until she was told." (3-23-64 statement to the FBI, CD706, p. 29) "I am a white female and was born on 8-14-41...When President Kennedy's motorcade passed the Texas School Book Depository building, I was looking out the third floor window trying to get a view of the President's car. I am nearsighted and I am not sure if I saw the President's car. However, I did see a car turn down Elm Street from Houston Street that may have been the President's car. I was standing at the window with an elderly woman from the MacMillan Company office. I cannot recall her name. I did not hear any shots or any loud sounds that sounded like rifle fire...I learned that President Kennedy had been shot after I returned to my desk." Mrs. Edna Case (11-24-63 FBI report based upon an 11-23-63 interview, CD5, p. 431) "At the time the President's motorcade passed, she advised she was on the third floor of the building at her desk. She stated that she was looking out the west side of the building and not the front. She said she had not heard the shots." (2-18-64 report of the Dallas Police Department, CD950, p.51) "The subject stated that on November 22, 1963 she was in the offices of the MacMillan Publishing Company on the third floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building at the time the Presidential motorcade was passing the building. She stated that she had only heard of the shooting after it had occurred. She stated that she did not know Lee Harvey Oswald and that, as far as she knew, she had never seen him around the building." (3-20-64 statement to the FBI, CD706, p.16) "I am a white female, born on November 20, 1909...On November 22, 1963, at the time the motorcade was passing the Texas School Book Depository Building and President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, I was at my desk on the third floor looking out the window located on the west side of the building. I did not hear any shots and the only person in the same area with me was Mrs. Sandra Elerson, who was a temporary employee with the Kelly Girls organization."

You really need to stop repeating Mantik's nonsense. The Fragment Fragment Now, to be clear, on this particular point I concur with Dr. Mantik. He was apparently the first to notice it, he deserves credit for it, and he is absolutely correct--CE 843, the fragment Humes claimed he'd removed from behind Kennedy's eye, bears no resemblance to the club-shaped fragment so many assume he'd recovered from the forehead. In his essay 20 Conclusions After Nine Visits, Mantik writes that this is “One of the most shocking contradictions in the entire case.The shape of the larger piece of metal is nothing like the supposedly identical piece seen on the x-rays. No measurements taken on this piece can explain its bizarre transformation in shape. Most likely, it is not the piece taken from the skull…I saw only two, not three, at NARA. The largest, however, bears no resemblance to the corresponding image on the x-rays. The larger piece shown here is pancake shaped and was 107 mg. On the other hand the x-rays show a club shaped object—on both x-ray views. The studies done by the FBI on this object—spectrographic analysis and neutron activation analysis, required only a tiny amount at most, about 1 mg, according to one of the FBI experts…No one has offered an explanation for this flagrant discrepancy in shape of the largest piece. Sampling of the material is not an explanation. The possibility of substitution of fragments, an issue actually raised by the neutron activation expert (Dr. Vincent Guinn), remains wide open.” While it might seem strange my quoting Mantik on this issue, seeing as I've repeatedly demonstrated his lack of credibility, it's not half as strange as Mantik's insisting the 7 by 2 fragment removed at autopsy is the fragment on the forehead on the x-rays, and then turning around and admitting that the fragment in the archives is not the fragment one sees on the forehead. Hmmm... I mean, before insinuating some sort of switcheroo had been performed, shouldn't it have occurred to him that maybe, just maybe, the fragment removed at autopsy was not the fragment on the forehead, but was a fragment removed from somewhere else? Hmmm... Perhaps even from where the doctors claimed it had been removed, from behind the right eye? I don't know. Just a thought... In any event, Mantik was correct to mention Guinn. Guinn testified before the HSCA that the fragment he tested, and the fragment subsequently seen by Mantik, was much smaller than the original fragment. While the fragment entered into evidence by the FBI was 107 mg, the one tested by Guinn 15 years later was only 41.9 mg. Robert Frazier, the FBI ballistics expert, described the fragments to the Warren Commission as follows: “These fragments consisted of two pieces of lead, one weighed 1.65 grains. (107 mg) The other weighed .15 grains. They were examined spectrographically so their present weight would be somewhat less since a very small amount would be needed for spectrographic analysis.” HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey, however, followed up on Guinn’s comments and was able to find out that the size of the fragment used in the spectrographic tests was 32.045 mg, not as large as the original fragment, and not as large as the remaining fragment. This means the FBI broke up the fragment and destroyed or lost more than 60% of its mass! The reasons for this are not clear. Since these spectrographic tests were done before Frazier’s testimony, moreover, this means the photographs of CE 843 entered into evidence during his testimony showed only the remaining fragment. This, then, explains the discrepancy noted by Mantik. But not really. When one reflects back on Mantik’s description of the fragment as “pancake-shaped,” and considers the size and shape of the fragment apparent in the forehead, it seems likely that the original-full-sized CE 843 looked nothing like the club-shaped fragment apparent in the forehead, and bore a much greater resemblance to the fragment found behind the eye on the x-rays. Enter John Hunt. At the 2003 assassination conference put on by Dr. Cyril Wecht, researcher John Hunt shared photos he’d recently uncovered at the National Archives, including photos taken by the FBI of the bullet fragments prior to testing. These photos revealed a much larger fragment than the one entered into evidence by Frazier, with a rounded edge on the far side of the fragment, and a bite out of the near side. Intriguingly, the shadow of this bite approximates the shape of the bite visible on the x-ray fragment. Intriguingly, when one rotates the fragment in one's mind, so that the bite appears in the 5 o'clock position of the bite apparent on the x-ray, a small shelf of lead is lifted towards the top of the fragment when seen from the side, precisely where such a shelf is visible on the lateral x-ray. When one looks at the fragment in the photo, and compares it to the shape of the forehead fragment apparent on the A-P x-ray, moreover, it’s clear that the fragment in the photo is too thick to be the club-shaped fragment on the x-ray. As a result it seems almost certain that this fragment is the large fragment seen on the x-ray, and that it was found behind the right eye, exactly as claimed by Humes. One finds support for this possibility, moreover, in the most surprising of places. In Larry Sturdivan's 2005 book The JFK Myths, he recounts his 2004 visit to the Archives to view the Kennedy autopsy materials. When discussing the supposed 6.5 mm fragment on the x-rays, which Sturdivan believes is an artifact, he offers "The disk was not as nearly circular as it appears on the view printed in the HSCA report. The edges are irregular, with the 'bite' being merely the largest indentation in the irregular, jagged margin." So, what Sturdivan thought was an artifact and what others believed was a "slice," was actually irregular--and thereby more likely to have been lead as opposed to the rounded slice of copper and lead presumed by most theorists. Not that Mantik will acknowledge this, of course. In his 2011 review of this website, Mantik asked himself "Has Speer explained the discrepancy between the 7 x 2 mm fragment (seen on the x-rays) and the quite different fragment in evidence at NARA?" He then responded by claiming that John Hunt has "discovered that only 2 mg was actually taken for spectroscopy. This is only a tiny fraction of the original mass (106.92 mg) of the larger fragment." Well, beyond his continuing to call the club-shaped fragment the 7 x 2 fragment, when this fragment was not in the location of the 7 x 2 fragment recovered at the autopsy, Mantik misled his readers on a crucial point. The fragment currently at NARA is not 104.92 mg, as suggested by Mantik, but 41.9 mg. The fragment used in the spectrographic tests was 32.05 mg. This suggests then that the 106.92 mg fragment recovered by the FBI was broken into pieces. Well, think about it. The break-up of this fragment, regardless of the reason, offers us a reasonable explanation for why the bullet fragment in the most recent archives photos fails to match its appearance on the x-rays. The bulk of the evidence, then, suggests that the 7 by 2 measurement given for the largest fragment recovered at the autopsy referred to an irregular fragment found behind the eye that appeared to be roughly 7 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick on the x-rays, and not a thin stake found in the middle of the forehead that was 7 mm long by 2 mm in width, as Dr. Mantik continues to claim. This fragment was then cut into pieces. For testing. Which is why it no longer gives the appearance it once did. It all makes sense.

Except it isn't.

LOL.

The fragment in the FBI photograph discovered by Hunt is almost certainly the fragment in the archives today. It was cut up for testing. But the fragment as seen today was part of the original.

The EOP entry was rejected by the Clark Panel on down because there was no upwards path ending at the large defect. They never looked down. We can presume, moreover, that they weren't allowed to, because that would mean a second shooter. Now I know you're gonna pretend there's no evidence a bullet went down the neck, but there is a massive amount of such evidence, which is widely discussed on my website. If you had actually read my chapters on the head wounds, you would know this.

Robert Edwards (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 19H 473, 19H647) “Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Ronald Fischer, and we were on the corner at Elm and Houston, and I happened to look up there at the building, the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, the window was wide open all the way; there was a stack of boxes around him, I could see. Bob remarked that he must be hiding from somebody. I noticed that he had on a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect, and his hair was rather short; I thought he might be something around twenty-six, as near as I could tell. The motorcade rounded the corner at this time, and then I thought I heard four shots, but it never occurred to us what it was. The shots seemed to come from that building there.” (12-2-63 FBI report, CD205 p.21-22) “Shortly after President Kennedy’s car passed his position, he heard shots, which he thought were three or four in very rapid sequence.” (4-1-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H200-205) (When asked what he saw before the president's arrival) "Nothing of importance except maybe one individual who was up there in the corner room of the sixth floor which was crowded in among boxes." (When asked what side of the sixth floor, to his left or right) "To my right...The corner window." (When asked to describe the man) "White man." (When asked tall or short) "I couldn't say." (When asked if he had anything in his hands) "No." (When asked if he could see his hands) "I don't remember." (When asked what kind of clothes he was wearing) "Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck." (When asked how much he could see) "From the waist on. From the abdomen or stomach up what..." (When asked fat or skinny) "Oh, about average. Possibly thin." (When asked if he could tell if he was light-skinned) "No." (When asked his hair color) "Light brown...That is what I would say; yes, sir." (When asked if he noticed anyone else on the floor) "No...I just didn't see any." (When asked if he saw anyone on the fifth floor) "No." (When asked why he said he saw someone on the fifth in his statement) "That has been straightened out since...they discussed it with me later and I took that back. That was the FBI...I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor." (When asked how many floors in the building) "I think seven in all, seven floors. It is next to the top." (When asked if the man's hair was short or long) "Don't know." (When asked how long he looked at the man) "Just a few seconds." (When asked how many shots he heard) “I heard one more than was fired, I believe…I still right now don’t know how many was fired. If I said four, then I thought I heard four. (When asked if he knew where the shots came from) “I have no idea” (When asked if he’d said the shots came from the building) “No, I didn’t say that.”

Read the website and all shall be revealed, LOL.

I have long wondered why Fonzi's book was never turned into a movie, as it seems like a natural. Perhaps it was deemed too controversial.

There are books with lots of info and there are books with reliably accurate info, and they are rarely the same books. While I was initially drawn to the former, I would suggest the latter to those expressing an interest. It's been awhile since I read it, but Someone Would Have Talked might be a good beginning.

I stand by my assessment. I have seen professionally-improved images from first gen films of Prayer Person and, all claims aside, they are nowhere near what would be necessary to make a convincing case. As far as your last line, nope. I'd heard this kinda thing so many times I'd assumed someone had ID'ed every other person on the steps. So I asked if someone could show me where Stanton and Sanders can be seen in the films, and received three different answers. Until there is unanimity on the IDs of those in the films, and everyone is accounted for, the probability it is someone other than Oswald can not be discounted. And will be accepted as fact by historians and journalists etc. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc. And the current state of the Prayer Man argument is nowhere near where it needs to be to be convincing to those who would need to be convinced. Sorry, I know this makes me a demon. But I really think people need to take a step back. There is a possibility Oswald was on the front steps at the time of the shooting. This is supported by a blurry image that may be Oswald, and may be somebody else. It is also supported by one interpretation of a long dead person's notes on an interview of Oswald--an interpretation that is at odds with the clear-cut statements of this person over a span of decades, and the reports and statements of others present during the interview. In the numerous public statements made by Oswald in the days before his death, he never said he was outside at the time of the shooting. Nor did he say as much in private conversations with his family. There is not one eyewitness who said they saw him on the steps, moreover. There are, however, several witnesses who probably would have seen him should he have been on the steps, who specified that they did not. There are also numerous statements placing Oswald elsewhere In the building shortly after the shooting, that those pushing he was on the steps, assume to be orchestrated lies. Even though these statements, in sum, suggest Oswald's innocence, and were long-cited by the research community as evidence for Oswald's innocence.

One juror said he was guilty. Maybe they all felt he was,. But that wasn't what the trial was about. Heck, he wasn't even on trial. The trial was to determine if he'd been libeled against in an article suggesting his involvement in the assassination. The jury found that the article was not libelous, as it may even have been true. But that is not a criminal conviction.

Bradlee's wife Toni was Mary's sister. After Mary's death, Toni received a call from her sister's best friend, telling her of the diary, and they raced over to the studio to retrieve it before the police searched the studio. Only to find Angleton leaving with the diary. His wife was also a friend, and he had supposedly went there at her direction. My recollection is that Bradlee and his wife decided it was best for Angleton to keep it for the time being. Their interest was in keeping it away from the cops and out of the papers. Years later the best friend underwent a divorce, and her husband decided to make some money off his wife's secrets. At that point Bradlee came forward and told his staff what had happened. He figured it was gonna come out, and didn't enjoy being scooped by the National Enquirer.

I remember him joining the forum. And that I pestered him about the memo... I think he was invited here by Simkin to answer questions about a new book. I see now a thread from 2005, but I don't see any questions about the memo, specifically, but he acknowledged speaking to Angleton and that Angleton had told him Hunt had been in Dallas while en route to Mexico City. Here's the give and take. 1. I accept it as history. It was widely discussed by people in Air America and the support staff. Chris Robbin's book is very good. 2. Angleton said Hunt was in Dallas not to kill Kennedy but on his way either to or from Mexico City where the Agency had a Station Chief who had been injured in an accident. Angleton's take on the Kennedy case is all in Secret History. 3. He gave it to her children. The diary was more a sketchbook then smoking hot diary. But there was enough personal stuff in it to make clear she had been JFK's lover according to Angleton.