Pat Speer

This is two times in this thread you have posted a bizarre response to one of my posts. I am not arguing about the location of the back wound. That's your thing. What I pointed out is that it is a misnomer to claim the chalk mark reflects Burkley's T-3 approximation, which Specter may not have even known about. The chalk mark was created to reflect the location of the bullet hole according to the autopsy measurements, clothing measurements, and autopsy photo. Do you think the chalk mark is inches above the "actual" location of the back wound, and, if so, do you think the chalk mark was part of a hoax designed to sell the single-bullet theory? And, if so, why didn't Specter put any photos of his re-enactment in which the chalk mark was shown on the record?

Actually, no. The SBT was proposed to account for the timing of the presumed responses of JFK and JBC in the Z-film. The 5-24-64 re-enactment was performed to see if it could be sold to the public. The chalk mark was placed on the jacket by Specter and SS agent Kelly AFTER they viewed the back wound photo some now claim is fake. After the re-enactment, Specter studied the SBT trajectory up close, while moving the re-enactors around in the limo to try to get the shot to align. He claimed it was close enough. But we have reasons to believe he knew this wasn't so. For one, the photo put into evidence to "show" JFK's back wound and throat wound aligned with JBC's back wound was taken from the front and failed to show the chalk mark on JFK's back, even though there were numerous photos showing JFK from the side, which showed the chalk mark...inches below the trajectory connecting the throat wound and JBC's back wound. For two, Specter began calling the back wound a "back of the neck" or "neck" wound only after being shown the photo proving it to have been a back wound, and continued to play games with the description for the rest of his life. This is documented ad nauseum in chapters 10 and 11 of my website, and was the subject of my presentation at the 2014 50th anniversary of the Warren Report Conference. (This was the presentation which drove WC counsel Burt Griffin running from the room.)

Blowing smoke as usual, Cliff. The back wound isn't even mentioned in that video.

The vast majority of LNs do not ignore JFK and JBC's movements as they come out from behind the sign, but claim them as proof they were hit at the same time, Z-224. It is JFK's movements before he went behind the sign that have been ignored, and lied about. The HSCA photography panel's conclusions were largely ignored, by LN and CT alike, before I started talking about them a few decades back. In fact, much of what is discussed today along these lines comes from the 50 Reasons for 50 years video Jeff and I put together for Len in 2013.

I think you are incorrect about the majority of papers endorsing Mondale over Reagan. I know for a fact they got behind Nixon over McGovern, and Nixon over Kennedy. As I recall, Carter suffered through minor scandal after minor scandal, while Reagan largely skated through Iran/Contra, in which he engaged in impeachable offenses. I think you are also being somewhat disingenuous by citing the circulation of papers over number of papers. No one disputes that Dems have been better for and stronger in large cities than Republicans, for decades and decades and decades. That's not a media bias, per se. I mean, you wouldn't expect a community that is largely black to have a morning paper endorsing the overthrow of civil rights legislation, right? It's also telling, IMO, that you call MSNBC "far left" but Fox, OAN, and Newsmax "conservative". That would appear to be a deliberate distortion designed to make MSNBC appear to be extreme, while the ones you name are not. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the average American is a 5, the views presented on MSNBC are a 7, with 10 being extreme left, woke, socialist, whatever. While Fox would be a 2, and Newsmax and OAN would be a 1 or lower. It's like you're comparing Adam Schiff and Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and making out that Schiff is the extremist.

Define "liberal." if you mean the Clinton, Obama, and Biden school of liberalism, then you are probably correct. If you mean the Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC school of liberalism then you are quite wrong. The media being "liberal" has long been a rallying cry of the right, long before it was true. If I recall, the 1964 election marked a turn in direction to the Dems, and Watergate made it official. But it wasn't by much. If you go back through the papers from 76 to 88, for example, you will see that Carter received much worse press than Reagan.

If you can get over your hatred you will realize that just about the only people caring about the issues you raise are those "hairdos" in Hollywood.

You can't be pro-Kennedy and anti-Hollywood. Old man Joe owned a movie studio. JFK roomed with movie stars, befriended the biggest stars and slept with the most glamorous actresses. Outside of Reagan, JFK was the most Hollywood-connected President in history. I mean, heck, even RFK had a friendship with Frankenheimer and others in the Hollywood crowd.

Trump forced the mainstream media and intelligentsia to recognize the dangers inherent in conspiracy theories. True or not, they lead to a lack of faith in institutions, and the next thing you know you've got soccer moms and grandfathers climbing the walls outside the Capitol like they are characters from a Shyamalan movie. The nature of the theory is not the point. If someone thinks vaccines are a hoax, or the Earth is flat, or the moon landings were fake, or the water supply is infected with chemicals designed to control our minds, it leads to fears among the gatekeepers that this person will soon be saying something like Jews drink blood, or Dems eat children. This is not the CIA at work. It's society at work. When I first heard RFK Jr. was running, I called up a friend of his. I told him it would be poop show with most everyone lining up to denounce him as a wacko, and a minority lining up to gain his ear in hopes they could convince him of their own pet theories. His friend said I was right--that whatever positives could be gained would likely be offset by the negatives. Sad to say, RFK Jr. should not be the face of the JFK research community. Instead of pulling people in, he'll probably push people away.

The clip I posted comes from the digitization of the original film, which was put out on DVD 20 years ago or so. There were no substantive differences between that version--which I think people call the MPI version--with the many other versions of the film released over the years. The only difference was clarity, and color. Perhaps you can post the Costello frames you believe show no reaction.

Are you claiming he was hit at 227 or 228? Because he is undoubtedly reacting to something within a split second of coming out from behind the sign.

To me it's quite obvious. Kennedy reacts before going behind the sign in the film, and Connally reacts after coming out from behind the sign in the film. P.S. While Gerry is blindly guessing at reasons Kennedy made his sudden turn, at least he is acknowledging the obvious--that JFK reacts to something. For decades single-assassin theorists claimed JFK was calmly waving prior to his coming out from behind the sign, and that he and Connally first reacted at the exact same time. This is balderdash. But the CT side trying to dismiss that Connally is hit circa Z-224 is equally blind, IMO. I mean. just look at him. He turns. He winces. He yells out "Oh my God, they're going to kill us all." What more do you need?

I think you have it backwards. Jackie's turn to JFK as they went behind the sign--and the probability this came as a result of his being shot--has long been considered extremely problematic for the single-bullet theory, and thus the single-assassin solution. Is it a coincidence that these frames disappeared when Life cut up the Z-film? Is it a coincidence Dale Myers chose to leave Jackie's movements out of his cartoon? Maybe. Maybe not. But you won't find Jackie's head turn discussed in any pro-LN material. It is simply not discussed. As far as her recollections... We can not see Jackie's eyes, so it's entirely possible she started to look at her husband but saw JBC moving in his seat and then receiving a bullet and only then began to focus on her husband and realize he'd previously been shot.

I would agree that Humes most probably fudged his report to connect the EOP entrance to the large wound. (This may even be one of the reasons he destroyed his notes, along with the first draft.) But am confused by one line: "not have confused it for a trail that started 4 inches lower and that ended at a point 2 inches lower in relation to the reference points of the EOP and the right orbit." Ended at a point two inches lower? Is this a reference to the large fragment found behind the eye?

A couple of points. 1. I'm not aware of any evidence the Secret Service destroyed x-rays. Where does this come from? 2. The autopsy report was written 2 days after Humes last saw the x-rays. It seems apparent that his initial thoughts were that the back wound was a dead end. There is also some evidence he believed there were two head wounds, and only matched up the EOP entrance and large head wound after it became clear he needed to limit the number of shots. If so, he may very well have claimed the x-rays showed a low to high trail of frags, even though he had been denied the chance to double-check this.

Gary is reporting what others have said. This is not necessarily what he thinks. He knows full well that Harper said the frag was found in front of where JFK was assassinated, but is deferring to an FBI report (which he would usually dismiss as dog crap) because it helps him make a point that will help his case, true or not. Many of the top researchers view the assassination as a trial, where they are attorneys, and the public is the jury. As a result, they often repeat things, both in print and in public, that they think will win the case...that they don't actually believe. The other side is no better, by the way. I mean, we both know that Vince B et al would have destroyed the likes of Brennan, Markham, Givens, Specter, Belin, etc, should they have not told them what they wanted to hear.

Hello? I acknowledge that Gary thinks the tangential shot blew off the back of the head. But I am nearly certain he doesn't believe the Harper fragment was occipital bone. Nor that the Z-film is fake. Nor that the body was altered, etc. IOW, he is not a member of "Team Mantik."

Uhhh... I seriously doubt this, Sandy. I have had dinner with Gary several times, have been invited to his private conferences multiple times, and have even spent the night at his house. 1) I don't believe Gary has been active on the internet for quite some time. 2) When he was on the internet, he spent most of his time arguing with McAdams, and tried to stay out of CT on CT warfare. 3) He is reluctant to come to conclusions, but has closely associated himself with Tink Thompson, who holds that the first head shot was a tangential shot from the front, that blew off the top and back of JFK's head, and that the second shot was from behind and exited through the blown-out skull. He has also written numerous articles with Wecht. Neither Thompson nor Wecht have ever claimed there were THREE headshots, a la Horne and Mantik, nor that the Z-film was fake, nor that the autopsy photos are fake. They have tried, moreover, to separate themselves from those positions, seeing as those positions have been closely associated with Fetzer and Groden (who are not taken seriously by "serious" researchers.) I do believe, however, that both Aguilar and Wecht are open to the back of the head photos being deceptive, with scalp pulled up to to cover up a hole, and to the x-rays having been tampered with. But I am near certain neither Aguilar nor Wecht subscribe to Mantik's ridiculous orientation for the Harper fragment, and suspect they hold Robertson (who is as annoyed by Mantik's nonsense as I) in higher esteem than Mantik. As for myself, I have no idea what their current views are. But they must have thought highly of my research at one point, seeing as Gary has intervened on my behalf to allow me to speak at a conference, has shown slides from my website in his own presentations, and has invited me to speak at his private conferences, and seeing as Cyril invited me to speak at his 50th anniversary conference in opposition to Mantik, and received an hour-long private presentation of my research the following year.

You really need to read my "Stuck in the Middle with You" chapter, which details Mantik's journey. What you don't seem to realize is that there is pretty much.a cult surrounding Mantik, that support him because they find his findings sexy and provocative. But most of his findings are nonsense. I've shown this over and over over the years. As fart as prominent people supporting Mantik's findings...Your argument from authority falls flat. (I know David well enough to know that he would agree with me on this.) To be clear, a number of people find his OD readings interesting. But Mantik proposes a right frontal entrance and an exit involving the left back of the head, neither of which was observed at Parkland or Bethesda. And this is in addition to a tangential wound at the top of the head, and an EOP entrance from behind. (I forget at the moment just where he thinks this bullet exited.) In any event, he has long proposed not two head shots, but three. I have talked with Wecht and Aguilar and neither of them subscribe to this. They are both on Team Thompson last I checked in that they both suspect a tangential wound at the top of the head, and a second bullet from behind that exited though the open skull. Wecht has told me, moreover, that he has a friendship with Mantik and supports his writings, but that one should not take from this that he agrees with all of Mantik's findings. P.S. Here is Doug Horne pointing out the location for his and Mantik's phantom wounds. Note that it is built upon--no surprise--Mantik's clearly incorrect orientation for the Mystery Photo.

Oh my. I have a ton of material on the Harper fragment on my website. Much of what Mantik has written has been a response to what I've written, in an attempt to prop up his ridiculous conclusion the Harper fragment is occipital bone.

I don't want to get into it, but the list you cite is largely meaningless. Some of them like Mantik and think his research is interesting, but have separated themselves from many if not most of his conclusions. Ironically, I agree with David about the dictabelt and disagree with the conclusions of Don Thomas, which some of these people whole-heartedly support. (Should the point not be obvious, I'm pointing into out that this same list of people would not side with Mantik on numerous other points...) P.S. You still haven't addressed any of these points... 1. Does the white patch cover Mantik's location for the Harper fragment? If not, why did most everyone citing Mantik's research claim it did prior to my pointing out that it did not? 2. Does Mantik's orientation for the mystery photo depict a large hole on the LEFT side of the skull? And, if so, why is it okay for him to pretend his orientation is in keeping with eyewitnesses who saw no such hole? 3. Does Mantik's orientation for the large triangular fragment necessitate a large hole on the front of the head, separate from a hole on the back of the head? And, if so, why didn't the Parkland witnesses notice such a thing? 4. Seeing as the bulk of the witnesses saw one and only one large hole on the head, doesn't it make a lot more sense to assume the large triangular fragment derived from this hole, as opposed to pretending there was a large hole that nobody saw? I could go on for days...

Mantik's "new" book is a collection of old essays containing a number of findings he has since abandoned. He corrected his incorrect placement of the smudge on the Harper fragment in 2013, during a "debate" with myself. P.S. Let me address one of Mantik's points. He writes: "According to Angel, the sagittal (i.e., midline, top of the head) suture is visible on the Harper fragment. That suture line helped Angel to locate the Harper fragment near the skull vertex, as shown in my Figure 11. However, based on the Harper X-ray, the lead site then lies just to the left of the skull vertex—and the lead is on the outside of the skull! That is truly bizarre. No one has ever proposed that a bullet entered at this site, yet that is precisely where Angel’s (and Riley’s) placement of the Harper fragment has led them." This is blithering nonsense. The lead fragment is to the left of the skull vertex in Mantik's mistaken orientation for the lead fragment, but near the temple on what he now admits is the proper orientation for the lead. So it's bit of a switcheroo. He admits he's wrong about one point, but then says he's right about another, by citing what he already admitted was false. Even more ironic. Initially, Mantik rejected my orientation for the Harper fragment on the skull by claiming no one had noted an entrance by the temple. He then admitted I was correct about the location of the lead on the fragment, but, as we've seen, still pretended the location for the lead in Angel's (and my) orientation meant the lead was left of vertex. He then started proposing there WAS an entrance near the temple, exactly as I'd been proposing for years, but failed to acknowledge that this was consistent with Angel's orientation for the Harper fragment. In short, he is desperate to pretend the Harper fragment is occipital, and has actively concealed reasons to believe it is not.

Uhhh, yeah. She was a medical illustrator hired by the HSCA FPP to help them with their exhibits. As it had been decided that the FPP could not put autopsy photos on the record, she was tasked with "tracing" a number of the photos. The problem, of course, is that these exhibits were not created in a vacuum, and were twisted a bit here and there to help Dr. Baden "sell" the FPPs conclusions. The most notorious example of this is the tracing of the back of the head photo, which Baden had Dox re-do to make the red spot look more like a bullet hole. This is pretty awful, when you think of it. The FPP concluded there had been a bullet hole where no witnesses saw a bullet hole, and their illustrator traced a photo in such a manner that it did not look like a bullet hole. So Baden had her "correct" her work to help him sell this non-existent hole.

How many of these pathologists had a background in skull reconstruction, or skull anatomy? It's a canard that all doctors are experts in anatomy or x-rays, etc? As someone who's spent much of the last two years in hospitals dealing with widely respected doctors, I can assure you that a few hours with an anatomy book or radiology book will make you far more qualified to judge the location of a bone, or the proper placement of a bone fragment an x-ray, than most doctors. On the other hand, Angel was a forensic anthropologist, who reconstructed numerous skulls, and Riley was a neuroanatomist, an expert on skull anatomy. Their opinions on a bone fragment would hold more weight than a hundred forensic pathologists. But we don't need them. All we need are eyes. As stated, moreover, Mantik now acknowledges that the Harper fragment bears little resemblance to occipital bone, and has mused that maybe JFK's Addison's disease flattened out the ridges that would otherwise be apparent on the inner aspect of the Harper fragment. Do you believe this? If so, well, I feel sorry for you.

You're cherry-picking, Michael. How many of those claiming they saw a hole on the back of the head said the autopsy photos were fake? Very few. More telling, how many of them placed the wound LOW on the back of the head below the level of the ears? Only a few. And of this few, how many made this claim prior to being shown the so-called McClelland drawing? None, right? You really should check out my website. It debunks a lot of crap from both sides of the fence, and presents a lot of FACTS people have chosen to ignore. Here's a goodie. In the early '80's The Boston Globe showed both the back of the head photo and the so-called McClelland drawing to a number of Parkland witnesses. It's been widely reported that most of these witnesses said the autopsy photo did not reflect what they remembered. But unreported until I reported it is that an even greater percentage of these witnesses rejected the accuracy of the so-called McClelland drawing. So how did Livingstone and Groden deal with this? They perpetrated a hoax and said ALL of the Parkland witnesses said the McClelland drawing was an accurate depiction of JFK's wounds. This was not true, then, or ever. And yet Groden and many others continue to pretend that the McClelland drawing--which wasn't even drawn by McClelland--is an accurate depiction of JFK's head wound, and was acknowledged as such by most every Parkland witness. It's a con.