Pat Speer

No, I have not done a re-enactment. The TSBD had an extension on the west side that no longer exists. I have walked around the building, however, and can verify that someone could leave the front of the building at a fast walk and come in from the side within a minute and a half to two minutes. Perhaps less. Maybe I'll time it the next time I'm in Dallas.

Once again, you are grossly mis-informed. Read the website. You'll learn a heckuva lot more than you will by repeating long-disproven talking points. Here's a sample: I got mad on behalf of Dr. James J. Humes. Not only did he accurately depict the position of the large fragment in Warren Commission Exhibit CE 388, but he was right about its angle within the skull. And yet, even so, everyone believed the Clark Panel when they said the largest fragment on the x-rays was on the back of Kennedy’s skull. Why did they believe them? (Heck, for that matter, why did I for the longest time believe them?) Were we pre-disposed to disbelieve Humes because of his military background? Or was it his Warren Commission experience in particular that destroyed his credibility? Were the autopsy doctors the boy who cried wolf and the Clark Panel a wolf in sheep’s clothing? I re-read every reference to the large fragment I could find. The autopsy report written by Dr. Humes states: “There is edema and ecchymosis (bruising) diffusely over the right supra-orbital ridge (the eye socket) with abnormal mobility of the underlying bone” and that “roentgenograms (x-rays) of the skull reveal multiple minute fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge… From the surface of the disrupted cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.” While these statements supported that the fragments were behind the eye, one might stretch them to support they were just behind the forehead as well. Perhaps then Humes' testimony was more specific. Indeed, it was. Before the Warren Commission, Humes testified that while studying the x-rays taken at the beginning of the autopsy, he'd observed "A rather sizable fragment visible by x-ray just above the right eye" and that the majority of the fragments visible on the x-rays were "dustlike...with the exception of this one I previously mentioned which was seen to be above and very slightly behind the right orbit." After being shown Exhibit 388, on which this fragment was depicted behind the right eye, he then explained: “We attempted to examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.” Arlen Specter then asked: "When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President’s eye?” To which Humes replied: “Yes, sir. Above and somewhat behind the President’s eye." He then continued: "We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.” Humes tried to get through to the HSCA as well. Dr Petty: “the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen in the lateral view” Dr. Humes: “Up by the eyebrow.” Dr. Petty: “no up by the—in the back of the skull.” Petty returned to the topic later: “we’re trying to establish whether this particular sharp-edged radiopaque defect is close to the back of the skull or close to the front of the skull." Dr. Humes: “I can’t be sure I see it in the lateral at all, do you? Do you see it?” Dr. Petty evaded Humes’ question and turned to Dr. Boswell: “Were these fragments that were recovered at all?” To which Boswell, obviously trusting Petty that the fragments were where he said they were, replied: “No. They were not.” When asked about the large fragment by the ARRB, Humes similarly relented: “I don’t remember retrieving anything of that size.” Later, however, when asked if he could spot any fragments on the lateral x-ray, he said: “Well, you see, there’s nothing in this projection that appears to be of the size of the one that appeared to be above and behind the right eye on the other one.” Wait. He claimed not to recognize the fragment, and yet he still knew exactly where it was—and it just so happened to be in the exact location where he’d found a fragment during the autopsy??? From this strange slip-up, one might assume Humes suspected all along that the Clark Panel’s fragment on the back of the head was in reality the fragment he’d found near the forehead. By the end of his ARRB interview, in fact, he admitted as much, telling Jeremy Gunn that the large fragment “that you saw in the first AP view of the skull could be the 7 by 2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI.” Well, at least Humes tried to tell the truth. Unfortunately, no one believed him… that is, except Dr. Boswell, who shared his faith the fragment was the one removed at autopsy. In 1994, when asked about the largest fragment on the x-rays by Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Boswell asserted "The largest piece was up along the frontal sinus, right." When shown the lateral x-ray by the ARRB, moreover, Dr. Boswell told Gunn “I think we dug this piece out right here,” and then explained “right here” as near the “right eye...right supraorbital area.” He later told Gunn that the large semicircular fragment he’d initially had trouble identifying on the A-P x-ray might very well be “the same as the one that appears to be in the frontal bone in the lateral.” Well, which part of the frontal bone? In any event, he was on the right track. And he wasn't alone. While the radiologist at the autopsy, Dr. Ebersole, died years before he could be called to testify before the ARRB, his two assistants at the autopsy, x-ray technicians Jerrol Custer and Edward Reed, who actually took the x-rays, were called to testify, and both confirmed that the large fragment on the x-rays was found behind the right eye. When asked in a series of questions if he could see the large fragment visible on the A-P x-ray on the lateral x-ray, Reed told Gunn, "Yes, I can...In the frontal lobe...Right above the supraorbital ridge...Supraorbital rim. It is right impregnated in there." Even more telling, when asked the same question a week later, Reed's boss on the night of the autopsy, Custer, testified that the large bullet fragment was located in the "Right orbital ridge, superior." Their statements, moreover, echo what Secret Service Agents Roy Kellerman and William Greer told the Warren Commission. On 3-9-64 Kellerman told the commission that both he and Greer were shown the x-rays during the autopsy and that the only fragment he recalled being removed came from "inside above the eye, the right eye." Shortly thereafter, Greer testified in a similar fashion. He recalled: "I looked at the X-rays when they were taken in the autopsy room, and the person who does that type work showed us the trace of it because there would be little specks of lead where the bullet had come from here and it came to the--they showed where it didn't come on through. It came to a sinus cavity or something they said, over the eye." As Custer and Reed were but technicians, and not officially qualified to interpret the x-rays, we can only assume the "person" who claimed this was Ebersole. And this wasn't the last time Kellerman spoke on the matter. In 1977, when asked about his role in the autopsy by an HSCA investigator, Kellerman recalled that the x-rays showed "...a whole mass of stars, the only large piece being behind the eye, which was given to the FBI agents when it was removed." So what did these agents have to say about this fragment? On the night of the autopsy, FBI agents James Sibert and Frank O’Neill signed a receipt as follows: “I hereby acknowledge receipt of a missile removed by Commander James J Humes.” These agents were therefore intimately involved in the recovery of this missile (which they would later insist was the fragment). One might think then that they'd be sure to remember if it was the largest fragment on the x-ray and from where it was removed. While an 11-22-63 memo from their boss, Alan Belmont, written during the autopsy, claimed a bullet was "lodged behind the president's ear," we can only assume this was a misunderstanding of what the agents had actually told their superiors over the phone. Sure enough, Sibert and O'Neill's 11-26 report on the autopsy asserts “The largest section of this missile as portrayed by x-ray appeared to be behind the right frontal sinus.” As the right frontal sinus is just above the eyebrow and is an inch or so lower than the club-shaped fragment widely believed to have been the fragment recovered at the autopsy, this would put the bullet fragment, not an intact bullet as implied by Belmont's memo, behind the eye, and not the ear, as claimed in Belmont's memo. (The club-shaped fragment, it should be noted, was simply in the middle of the forehead, and not lodged behind anything, let alone another body part beginning with the letter "E".) Lest that not be convincing, Sibert and O'Neill's subsequent statements further confirmed that the largest fragment recovered at autopsy was recovered from behind the eye, and not from the middle of the forehead. Although a 10-24-78 affidavit signed by Agent Sibert for the HSCA said merely that the fragments were recovered from the head, a report on an 8-25-77 interview with James Sibert notes "Sibert believes that both fragments came from the head, probably from the frontal sinus region." An HSCA Report on a 1-10-78 interview with his partner Frank O'Neill, moreover, confirmed that this fragment was recovered from just behind the eye. It states: "O'Neill believes the doctors recovered a piece of the missile from just behind an eye and another one from further back." On 11-8-78, O'Neill even put this in writing; his signed affidavit declares "I saw the doctors remove a piece of the missile from just behind an eye and another one from further back in the head." (P.S. It seems likely O'Neill thought the second fragment recovered was the second largest one noted on the x-rays. This is an understandable mistake. He noted two fragments in his report and the doctors recovered two fragments. Problem is they weren't the same two. The second fragment recovered by the doctors was found right next to the fragment removed from behind the eye while the second largest fragment observed on the x-rays was, according to O'Neill's own report on the autopsy, observed "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone.") And no, Sibert and O'Neill aren't the end of our parade of witnesses for the fragment behind the eye. That honor belongs to Bethesda chief of surgery Dr. David Osborne. On 4-5-90, Osborne (then an Admiral) wrote JFK researcher Joanne Braun. He told her that the fatal bullet "hit in the occipital region of the posterior skull which blew off the posterior top of his skull and impacted and disintegrated against the interior surface of the frontal bone just above the level of the eyes." So here we have the men most intimately involved with the skull x-rays ALL stating that the large fragment on the A-P x-ray was in the supraorbital ridge or that the trail of fragments came to an end above and behind the right eye.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you think he was taking about Bonnie Ray Williams, or Otis Williams? Here's what I have on Otis Williams. Otis Williams (11-24-63 FBI report, CD5 p.64) “at the time the Presidential procession passed the Texas School Book Depository Building, Williams was on the front steps of the building. The Presidential car had just passed the building a few seconds and was out of sight over the embankment when Williams heard three loud blasts. He thought these blasts came from the location of the court house. He did not look up and immediately went back into the building into his office on the second floor. A few minutes later, Detectives came into the building and he went with a Detective to check the second floor of the building.” (2-18-64 report of the Dallas Police Department, box folder 19 file 20 of the Dallas JFK Archive) "He heard three shots that sounded like they were coming from the west side of the Texas School Book Depository. The president's car had gotten out of Mr. Williams' view when he heard the shots. Mr. Williams then came back into the building, and went to his office on the second floor. He then went to the fourth floor after hearing that the President had been shot. He used the stairway to go to the fourth floor, but stated that he did not see anyone on the stairway." (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H683) “On November 22, 1963, at the time the Presidential motorcade passed the Texas School Book Depository, I was standing on the top step against the railing on the east side of the steps in front of the building. I do not recall who was standing at either side of me, but I do know that Mrs. Robert E. Saunders, also an employee of the Texas School Book Depository, viewed the motorcade. Just after the presidential car passed the building and went out of sight over the Elm Street embankment I heard three loud blasts. I thought these blasts or shots came from the direction of the viaduct which crosses Elm Street. I did not then know that President Kennedy had been shot. I remained momentarily on the steps and then returned inside the building.” (No More Silence p.116-120, published 1998) “when the motorcade came around the corner and then made that bend to get to the underpass, I had a clear view as it passed by of the President and all in the car, and then it went behind a little wall going toward the underpass. Probably five or ten seconds later is when I first thought I heard the shots. The first one I assumed someone threw a firecracker… It was about five or ten seconds before he was hit when he went out of my sight. I definitely heard three shots. Fact is, as soon as the third shot happened, and everybody commenced milling around, I thought it came from the underpass. I entered the building immediately, climbed up the stairs back where the warehouse elevator was which led to the sixth floor and went up to the fourth floor, which was the first one I could see from to see the underpass. After I got up there and saw that nothing was going on on the underpass, I turned around and came back down to the office and called my wife. Soon, while we were talking, people came in, officers rushed in, and I had to get off the phone... I could have gone down the steps while Oswald came down, but he came down on the elevator. Anyway, I walked down the steps but didn't see him or anything." Now I'm not sure what to make of this. It appears his story changed from his going up to the fourth floor after being told JFK had been shot, to his going directly up to the fourth floor after the shots rang out. I suspect the former. He was not noticed by Adams, Styles, or Garner in the moments right after the shooting. He was consistent on one point, however. He went straight in and up the stairs to the second floor. Now, it seems obvious he would take the front stairs--perhaps that's why he wasn't interviewed by the WC. But he later said he'd taken the back stairs. If the former is true--if he took the front stairs and didn't see Oswald--then his statements fail to support the Prayer Man theory. But if the latter is true--that he took the back stairs and didn't see Oswald, well, that's a bit of a puzzle. It could mean Oswald was not in the lunch room. Or it could mean Oswald arrived seconds after he passed. Or it could mean he'd passed Oswald near the front of the building. P.S. It seems probable he took the front stairs. The TSBD offices where he worked were in the middle of the building, and he would have been going way out of his way to take the back stairs...assuming, that is, that he first went to his office, as originally claimed. Oh yeah, this reminds me. IF he actually had raced to the fourth floor first, as claimed decades later, well, why the heck didn't he just take the elevator right by the door?

Yikes. All of your points are addressed on my website, which you really should read. A couple of quick points. 1. Your claim the fragment Humes removed is the fragment Mantik claims is the one he removed is just bizarre. Not only did Humes and others say the fragment was behind the eye, he had a drawing created showing it to be behind the eye, inches away from where Mantik claims it was. He also told the ARRB he thought the so-called 6.5 mm fragment was the fragment he'd removed at autopsy. To top things off, Mantik admits the forehead fragment is not the fragment removed at autopsy. Now, to be clear, he thinks it was, but that it mysteriously got switched. ANYTHING but admit he could be wrong. I mean, he repeats with regularity that Humes removed the forehead fragment, when Humes and others insisted the fragment he re moved was behind the eye. Mantik rarely admits this, but when he does he dismisses the claims of numerous witness with the wave of a hand. They said it was behind the eye but I know better because...because...well, they said it was 7 x 2 and I believe the forehead fragment is 7 x 2 or close enough. But that's not the way it works. X-rays are a 2 dimensional projection for a 3 dimensional object. If you took a a silhouette photo of a tall and skinny person from a distance, while the person was standing sideways, you might think it was a post or pillar. But with the person facing the camera? It would be readily identifiable as a person. The supposed 6.5 mm fragment is reportedly a slice of bullet. Well, how wide would that slice be? Whether or not my identification of the fragment is correct, one can not reasonably dispute that the large fragment on the A-P x-ray could be the fragment removed at autopsy. There's no way around it. 2. Oh that's right, the OD's... You really need to read my chapters on the x-rays and Mantik to understand the scope of it. But let me say this. There's a reason Fitzpatrick and others keep their distance from Mantik. P.S. I already posted this, but apparently you failed to look at it.

What the heck? We have already established that much of this post is nonsense. The "corresponding" fragment Mantik claims was recovered at autopsy was actually a couple of inches away from the fragment recovered at autopsy (CE 843). That's why they don't look alike. They'r not the same fragment.

Mrs. Avery Davis (11-23-63 interview with FBI agent Nat Pinkston recounted in an 11-29-63 memo found in the Dallas FBI files at the Weisberg Archives) "On 11/22/63 she was standing on the front steps of the building when the president passed and she then heard three explosions. She did not realize they were shots and did not see anyone with a gun and immediately returned to the building and to the elevator to her fourth floor offices. She does not recall ever having seen Oswald before." (11-23-63 interview recounted in 12-10-63 FBI report, CD7 p.23) “she was standing on the front steps of the building when the president passed and she then heard three explosions. She did not realize they were shots.” (2-18-64 report of the Dallas Police Department, box 3, folder 19, file 6 of Dallas JFK Archive) "She saw the motorcade pass her location. From her location she heard the three shots but thought they came from the railroad to the west." (3-20-64 statement to the FBI, 22H642) “I am a caucasian female born April 13 (1916?)...At about 12:15 P.M. on November 22, 1963, I left the depository building and took up a position on one of the lower steps of the building entrance to view the Presidential motorcade as it passed on Elm Street. I recall that Judy McCully...was standing by me, I believe, on my left...A moment after the car in which President John F. Kennedy was riding passed, I heard three explosions. At first I did not realize these explosions were gun shots…I did not know from which direction the shots had come but thought they were from the direction of the viaduct which crosses Elm Street west from where I was standing.” Judy McCully (11-24-63 FBI report, CD5 p. 432) "On November 22, 1963, McCully was watching the Presidential Procession from the fourth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building and just after the Presidential Car had passed the building, she heard a noise, which she thought to be a shooting. She did not know from which direction the shot was fired. At that time, she did not observe any suspicious activity on the part of anyone in the Texas School Book Depository Building, or among the persons in front of this building. McCully stated she is not acquainted with Lee Harvey Oswald and does not recall ever having seen him in the Texas School Book Depository Building." (2-18-64 report of the Dallas Police Department, box 3 folder 19 file 13 of the Dallas JFK Archive) "Miss McCully stated that on November 22, 1963, she and Mrs. Avery Davis were standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository at 12:30 PM, and were watching the Presidential parade. She saw the President's car go by, and as the car proceeded down toward the triple underpass, she heard three shots. The shots sounded like they came from the right side of the building in the arcade. She stated that she started running to see what was happening and saw the President's car speed off. She heard a woman scream, and then she went back into the building. She then started to leave the building and was stopped by the police who had entered the building after the shooting..." (3-20-64 statement to the FBI, 22H663) “I am a white female, born on August 13, 1943...On November 22, 1963...I was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository Building with Mrs. Charles Davis, also an employee of Scott-Foresman, to watch the motorcade bearing President John F. Kennedy pass by the building. As the motorcade passed, I heard some shots fired, but did not know the direction from which they came...(Additional note following her statement) Miss McCully advised that when she was previously interviewed by FBI agents on November 24, 1963, she recalls telling them she was standing on the fourth floor of the Texas School Book Depository watching the Presidential motorcade pass by the building; however, she stated she wished to clarify this point by stating she was actually standing on the steps of the main entrance to the building and immediately following the shooting returned to the fourth floor."

A couple of points. That is some serious cherry-picking there, Michael. Are you going out for the Olympics? First, you ignore where Humes placed the fragment and pretend "we" know better. And then you repeatedly refer to CE 843, and ignore the fragment as first photographed. As far as the OD measurements... Don't you kinda wonder why forensic radiologists refuse to support Mantik's methodology and findings? I mean, I'm a layman. It's not a surprise that not one radiology "expert" has offered support for my findings, IF they have even heard of them. But Mantik, a doctor, has been begging for support for decades now. Heck, he even paid someone to publish a paper, so he could claim his work had been "peer-reviewed". And yet, no support. Year after year, book after book. You need to get over your hero worship and read at least some of my website. If you do, you'll see that I too once had heroes...until I took a closer look. Now they're just guys, right about some stuff, wrong about some stuff. As far as Mantik, he was never a hero, but I deferred to his expertise on radiology matters, before looking into this stuff for myself.. Here, to show my disagreement with him is not personal, I will say some nice stuff about him. 1. He is always polite when I meet him. 2. He is willing to stick by his guns, even when under fire. (I was at a mini-conference at which he challenged the CT orthodoxy regarding the dictabelt evidence, and man, did he piss people off. There were questions about his cognitive abilities, etc.) But I respect that he didn't back down and suspect he was correct. 3. He is correct about other stuff, as well. While reading through his articles, I found inspiration in a number of his claims. He demonstrated that a path from the back wound location to the neck wound location would pass through bone. This confirmed what Dr. Nichols had claimed previously. This helped lead me to reject the single-bullet theory. He said the "trail of fragments" on the x-rays was in an area of the skull where there was purportedly no brain. This led me to realize that it was worse than that, and that the trail of fragments is absolutely positively on the outside of the skull. He said the forehead fragment on the x-rays (which he mistakenly believes is the fragment removed at autopsy) is not the fragment in the archives (purported to be the fragment removed at autopsy). Well, this led me to double-check his assumptions, and realize that the forehead fragment was NOT the fragment removed at autopsy. And this, in turn, led me to look on the lateral x-ray where the doctors said they found the fragment they removed, and realize that it was right there all along, hiding in plain sight. P.S. I remember now that one of my statements isn't true, and that some of my findings have been confirmed by X-ray professionals. a dozen years ago or so, I joined a radiology forum and asked a few questions. Well, I received support for a couple of my suspicions. Several techs verified that the fractures low on the A-P x-ray were in the eye socket, and said occipital fractures would not be that clear on an A-P view. And another told me he'd stand by what Fred Hodges said. Well, at that time the conclusions of Hodges--a consultant for the Rocky commission--were not widely available. When I got access to them, however, I received a surprise. Hodges said the autopsy photos and x-rays confirmed the entrance wound described in the autopsy report. IOW, he rejected the conclusions of his former colleague, Russell Morgan, and said the entrance was on the occipital bone, and not four inches higher on the parietal bone, as claimed by Morgan.

Are you familiar with the term "discovery", Michael? I I have made dozens of discoveries regarding the Kennedy assassination. Here are a few... I was able to locate the first published ballistics study of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition. This showed head wounds far smaller than Kennedy's head wound on heads fired upon from much closer than Kennedy was fired upon. I arranged to have Oswald's light brown shirt photographed using color film, and proved the shirt was actually "reddish" and undoubtedly the shirt Oswald said he had worn to work. Using recent scans of the evidence photos, I was able to prove Lt. Day fibbed when he said HE had ripped the palm print from Box D, and signed it on the day of the shooting. I was also able to prove that Box A was missing from the sniper's nest on the 23rd, and was replaced by another box for the sniper's nest re-creation photos taken on the 25th. And what about the bag? I was able to show that the bag removed from the building on the 22nd was of different proportion than the bag as later photographed, AND that the Warren Report switched the purported locations of the prints found on the bag--which oh-so-conveniently helped sell the Oswald-did-it theory. All of this stuff and much much more was missed by previous researchers and investigators. And "discovered" by me. So why should the medical evidence be different?

I have it right here, Doug. Is there any particular passage you are looking for?

Macerated cerebrum gives the appearance of cerebellum. Most of the doctors originally stating they saw cerebellum later backtracked and said they must have seen macerated cerebrum, or that they were simply repeating what others had said. Dr Clark thought conspiracy theorists were idiots and refused to comment. Dr. Peters said he saw THE cerebellum (as opposed to cerebellum dripping out of the top or back of the head--which would be consistent with the cerebellum described by others. He was insistent, however, that he saw the cerebellum while looking down into the skull from ABOVE the cerebellum, and that there was no wound on the skull at the level of the cerebellum. That leaves McClelland, an erratic witness if there ever was one. He says he saw a clump of cerebellum drip out of the skull onto the floor. He says he saw this while standing at the head of the gurney looking down at the skull. The problem, of course, is that JFK was on his back the whole time. And it's worse than that. After a time, they placed Kennedy into what is known as the Trendelenburg position. Essentially, they lifted his feet to a position higher than his head to bring more blood flow to his upper body. Well, this suggests that McClelland was confused by the rotation of JFK's body, and that what he thought was the back of JFK's head was really the top of his head. This is demonstrated below.

They perform autopsies for a reason. Emergency room doctors frequently miss the cause of death, and their memories of specific wound locations etc are notoriously unreliable. (If they were intended to be relied upon, they would have had a nurse there taking notes.) In McClelland's case, he is particularly and spectacularly unreliable. He can say whatever feels good...NOW. But his official report on Kennedy's death claims the fatal head wound was "of the left temple."

McClelland made (and sold?) a bunch of these drawings. And he failed to specify on many of them that he did not see the back wound, and only guessed there'd been a wound on the front of the head. McClelland, by his own admission, failed to suspect a frontal headshot on November 22, and only did so after viewing the Zapruder film in the 70's. He is erratic, at best. On his latter-day drawings, for example, he placed the head wound on the far back of the head. It's clear he was giving people what they want, or outright fibbing, you choose. Compare the placement of the wound in these drawings to where he placed the wound in the 80's. It's at least four inches lower, right?. Now, is it a coincidence that the more time McClelland spent with conspiracy theorists, the lower the wound became in his recollection? We can suspect not.

I believe Greg is incorrect about Campbell's writing a report in which he claimed to see Oswald as he (Campbell) came back in the building. I believe this comes from an early news article, in which Campbell described Oswald's getting stopped by an officer in the building, and indicated that this happened at the front of the building. But he did not claim he'd witnessed such a thing. There is reason to believe he was sloppily repeating what he'd heard, and not sharing what he'd actually observed, moreover. His 3-19-64 statement to the FBI concludes: "I have had occasion to view photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald and to the best of my recollection never saw him while he was employed at the Texas School Book Depository." Well, 1) Oswald was employed at the Texas School Book Depository on 11-22-63, and 2) if he knew who Oswald was and what Oswald looked like well enough to tell someone he'd seen Oswald as he (Campbell) came into the building, well, he wouldn't have had to study photos months later to figure out if he'd ever seen him in the building.

Yes, he had a good view...and wrote a report on what he saw...within hours of the shooting...which said the wound was"of the left temple". A week or two later, he was interviewed by a journalist who'd suspected a shot came through the windshield, and told that journalist there was nothing about JFK's head wound to make him think the shot came from the front. A few weeks after that, a Texas Medical Journal published his initial report. but it now read "of the right temple." McClelland never said anything about a blow out wound on the back of the head before reading the reports of his fellow doctors, and testifying before Warren Commission counsel Arlen Specter. This was 4 months after the assassination. And no, he wasn't frightened into silence or some such thing. I asked him about this personally, and he said he'd never been pressured into changing his views. Within Weisberg's Archives, finally, there is a memo on a conversation with McClelland 1969-1970, in which McClelland had nothing but nice things to say about Arlen Specter, but was heavily critical of Jim Garrison, and Jim Garrison's investigation, which he'd considered a waste of taxpayers' money. He is not what people think he is.

Actually, a number of them are covering the top rear of their head. And several of those pointing to the low back of the head were pointing to the most rearward part of the defect after the scalp was pulled back and skull felt to the table, and not where there was a defect at the beginning of the autiopsy. (Pretty sneaky, that Groden.) Custer, moreover, specified that the low back of the head was shattered, but intact beneath the scalp. A more telling observation is that none of these witnesses, outside Custer and O'Connor, who were pointing out the defect once the scalp was peeled to the side and skull fell to the table, and Crenshaw and Bell, who only came along decades later after being exposed to tons of conspiracy stuff showing a wound low on the back of the head, pointed to a location at and below the level of the ears. Now, an honest search for truth might lead one to conclude the wound as first observed was on the back of the head, above the level of the ears. But a number of prominent CTs have instead taken what was actually said--that the wound was high on the back of the head--and pretended it means the wound was actually low on the back of the head between the ears. And that's bonkers. If some old sports writers recall the height of a star player, decades later, as 6' 6", when official records and photos show he was 6'9"', one can not just assume he was actually 6' 3'', and then conjure up a scenario where all the official records and photos have been faked. Can one? I hope not.

FWIW, I studied the media's response to the 50th anniversary and rated the programs and articles as to CT bias and LN bias. I found that there was a 2-to-1 bias to the LN position--roughly double what one would expect based on public opinion polls. Over the years, however, I have noticed a divide. For every documentary, newspaper article, or news program saying Oswald did it there is a movie or TV drama which alludes to the JFK assassination--and presents is as a conspiracy. Movies like Shooter, or Watchmen, in which characters claim to have participated in or are shown to participate in the assassination, may very well have as much impact on public opinion as Bugliosi's book, or Stone's movie.

Thanks, Charles. I finally watched the Dumb and Dumber movies with my son awhile back. I enjoyed them more than I would have expected.

It's a mystery to me why so much energy has been spent on this issue. The figure can not be identified as Oswald. And the closest person to the figure has specified numerous times that it is not Oswald. It kinda reminds me of that movie line--I don't remember where it's from. But it's a guy desperate for attention, who is told "I wouldn't go out with you if you were the last man on Earth" or something equally harsh. And his response is "So you're telling me there's a chance!"

Congratulations. You're wearing me out, Michael. A couple of points, nonetheless. You start by stating "You are the one who keeps ignoring key facts, including the fact that (1) 27 medical experts have placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head" My response: I think that number is inflated but nevertheless acknowledge as true that some "experts" have claimed the large fragment on the A-P is on the back of the head. What is bizarre, however, is that you keep stating this in defense of Mantik, who similarly claims the large fragment is NOT on the back of the head. (It appears you are confusing Mantik's claim a smaller fragment resides near the back of the head, and is overlapped by the large fragment on the A-P x-ray, with his stating the large fragment is on the back of the head. But this isn't true. His trip down this particular rabbit hole began when he realized it was not where it was purported to have been.) You continue... "Humes himself said that the "largest fragment" he removed was the 7x2 mm fragment. So obviously the 6.5 mm object could not be the largest fragment that Humes removed." My response: You're playing word games, perhaps unintentionally. Humes said he removed A 7 x 2 fragment; he never specified that what Latimer called and Mantik continues to call THE 7 x 2 fragment was that fragment. In fact, he claimed,. to the very end, that the 7 x 2 fragment he removed at autopsy was removed from behind the eye. And, oh yeah, by the way, he ultimately told the ARRB he thought the large fragment on the A-P x-ray was the fragment he removed at autopsy...from behind the eye. You conclude: "we have the largest fragment that Humes said he removed, and it looks nothing like the 6.5 mm object. It is not a perfect circle with a neat notch chipped from its bottom-right side. It is astounding that you continue to ignore this fact." My response: Horse feathers! Mantik himself claims the fragment in the archives is NOT the fragment he claims is the 7 x 2 fragment on the x-rays. Now, someone, little old me, decided to follow up on this, and see if he was correct. And I concluded he was. While looking into this, moreover, I studied the FBI photo uncovered by John Hunt of the this fragment before it was broken into pieces. And, holy smokes, it has a circular bite out of it, and could easily be the large fragment on the A-P x-ray. Objects on x-rays are not placed flat on a slide, so one has to imagine how it might appear from different angles, and the fragment in the FBI photo is consistent with the shape and size of the fragment on the x-ray. P.S. While I'm lacking in many skills, I took an Armed Services test in high school and did quite well. Some of the questions involved mental rotation of images. A shape was presented, and you had to pick out which of a number of other shapes could be that shape if viewed from a different angle. My score was in the top percentile on these kinds of questions. And this whet a recruiter's appetite. I received call after call and letter after letter for months, offering me full scholarships to Harvard, Stanford, USC, etc, if only I joined the reserve and committed to two years as an officer. It was a full court press. A year later, while attending my local university, CSUN, I received a final last ditch effort from a new recruiter, who if I recall had just replaced the recruiter who'd been hounding me. In any event, this was a hand-written letter, filled with spelling errors and grammatical errors--something you might expect from a grade school kid. Finding it kinda sad, and not knowing how to respond, I showed it to my college English professor. She was shocked. She took it from me, and said she was gonna get to the bottom of it. And she did. As I recall, she contacted Senator Alan Cranston, who launched an investigation into why the Army (I think it was the army, but it could have been another branch) was writing sloppy hand-written letters to recruits. I believe the recruiter lost his position, which I've always felt a bit guilty about. I mean, I had no idea my English professor would have such a strong reaction, let alone the gumption to do something about it.

Good point, Karl. FWIW I have seen a presentation using the best images available that wasn't much clearer, where the presenter nevertheless ID'ed this as Oswald, claiming the shirt jewelry, face, etc, were all perfect matches. It kinda makes you wonder...what we're doing here.

Frazier has been trying to stay out of the Prayer Man squabble. I was there when a few people tried to grill him about it. He said he did not know who it was, but felt certain he would have remembered Oswald's being on the steps. As I recall I followed up by asking if it could have been Stanton and he repeated that he didn't know who it was. So he had the opportunity to say it wasn't her but refused to do so. As far as left or right...she had legs, and may very well have moved from her original position when he talked to her, or moved afterwards... IOW, it would be folly to assume his recollection of her being on his left meant she was never on his right.

A couple of points. 1. I was interested in this aspect of the case and bought Studebaker's HSCA testimony from the Archives. I considered it quite important and gave it to Rex Bradford, who eventually put it online on the Mary Ferrell site. 2. I considered it important for a number of reasons. One was that Studebaker claimed he made his copies not from negatives but by taking photos of the photos with a large format camera--what he called a copy camera. This was important because the HSCA photo panel had claimed all the copies of 133 C and the blow-up of 133 - A had been made from the original negatives, and that the DPD must have lost two of the three negatives. IF Studebaker was telling the truth--and there was in fact no record of the DPD ever having more than two negatives--then it follows that the photo panel was full of crappola, and these photos could have been fakes. There is only one negative for the three photos--and the authenticity of that negative would be called into question as well. I mean, if the FBI and photo panel were blowing smoke about the blow-up of 133-A, well, then, all their testimony about these photos could be smoke. 3. Studebaker admitted as well that he'd tried to sell a set of crime scene photos in partnership with a local mob figure. I don't think anyone in the research community knew about this prior to my receiving his testimony from the archives. As far as I know, no one has followed up on this.

Oh my, Greg, you lost me. I was following your reasoning until you said Prayer Man couldn't be Stanton because Frazier didn't recognize it as Stanton. Well, he said he was standing by Stanton and he hasn't pointed her out anywhere else. So it could be Stanton. and is quite possibly Stanton, seeing as she is known to have been in the area and isn't anywhere else. As for your next point--that it is a male, I think that's lala. There is no way you or anyone can say that that blurry blob is a man. Or a woman for that matter. I am sure you are aware of this, but people are highly open to suggestion. Some have been shouting that the figure looks EXACTLY like Oswald for so long that others have begun to believe it. But it wasn't true when they began yelling it, and isn't true today. In fact, I am aware of studies and presentations claiming one can make out a bracelet on Prayer Person's wrist, and that it's Oswald's Marine Corps bracelet. Nonsense. The limited number of pixels in the image--even on the clearest copies--are not enough to make out facial features and the writing on the bracelet, etc. No. The only study of the image to hold any weight, to my knowledge, is the study demonstrating that Prayer Man is shorter than Oswald, and could only be Oswald if were standing on a lower step, etc. And that pretty much sinks the boat, IMO. It's one thing to say Oswald was in back of his co-workers and wasn't noticed but it's another thing entirely to say he stepped forward in front of some of them...and STILL wasn't noticed. I mean, think about it. It's the weakest sauce imaginable. No one has said they saw Oswald on the steps. No photo exists of what is indisputably Oswald on the steps. No photo exists of what a majority of researchers think is Oswald on the steps. The only images which may show Oswald on the steps are too blurry to provide a positive ID, and can not be improved upon to the extent necessary to provide a positive ID. Despite plentiful opportunity, Oswald never told anyone he was out on the steps when the shots were fired. The author of the only notes which might possibly suggest Oswald was outside when the shots were fired, wrote a report in which this wasn't mentioned, and lived a long life in which he never told anyone Oswald had said he was outside when the shots were fired. There's no there there. Barring a confession from Frazier, or the release of an unpublished manuscript by Hosty or some such thing, it's a dead end. P.S. I re-read your analysis of Marina's testimony re her supposed trip to the furniture store, and found myself believing her more than the woman claiming to have seen her at the store. The testimony you cite is 4 months after the shooting. Are there November statements by this woman which can be compared to her subsequent testimony? Because people don't remember encounters with strangers in the detail she claims for weeks afterward, let alone months. I suspect she's a fabulist, trying to insert herself into a bit of history. But I would be more inclined to believe her if she came forward on the day of or day after the shooting. In such case her recollections during testimony would be of what she said then--11 or 12 days after their supposed encounter--as opposed to being memories from the encounter itself.

Sorry, Michael, my bad. 18c and 18d were about the controversy over JFK's head wounds. 16b and 16c are the two on the forensic literature. Someone could argue with much of my work--saying it's just my impression, etc. But the material in 16b and 16c is mostly not my own, as I am simply repeating what physicians and researchers were reporting in the early 20th century. .

FWIW, I destroyed McLaren's arguments on my website shortly after his terrible TV show was broadcast. He then contacted me and told me Americans like me are the reason the case hasn't been solved, and defied me to publish his response. I did, of course. Here is my review of his show, and his response. https://www.patspeer.com/the-smoking-gun-that-lied-a-review-of-jfk-the-smoking-gun