Pat Speer

What are you talking about? Charles Petty was presumed to be the most experienced member of the HSCA FPP when it came to gunshot wounds.

There was nothing to dissect. It was an injury to the skin and fascia--i.e. on the outside of the body. While mucky-mucks may have interfered with a dissection of the neck, no one said anything about the back wound, because the doctors were 100% convinced on the night if the autopsy that there was no wound track. They only invented one later after talking to Perry, and after Oswald's death.

Petty was a forensic pathologist. He did not fire on cadavers. He wrote his textbook during his stint on the HSCA FPP. IOW, he knew the "shored exit" argument was bs, or that the throat wound was much much bigger than anyone who saw it remembered.

This is a LN myth, Gerry. Charles Petty of the HSCA FPP wrote a textbook including a section on shored exits. In it he claimed shored exits are inevitably larger than the entrance wounds made by this same bullet.

Oh, c'mon, you know damn well they never established such a trajectory, but presumed one due to the bruising at the FRONT in back of the throat. Specter realized that this was weak sauce, for that matter, and from thereon claimed the bruising on the strap muscles was on the back. Only...ding ding ding...there are no strap muscles on the back through which a bullet could slide, only one flat trapezius muscle, which Hume claimed reveled no entrance into the underlying tissue. So...the scientific facts are that they found no transit from back to front, but that one was conjured up anyhow.

I ended up disagreeing with most of Lifton's conclusions, but still owe a debt to him, in that he helped convince me something was awry. The same goes for Groden. People run off in the woods. While the trail they blaze may not end up being your trail, you should acknowledge that their willingness to run off into the woods inspired you, and that you might otherwise still be on the outside, staring at the freakin' woods.

No if anything it's an understatement. Some jerk in the Ukrainian military is a National Socialist-sympathizer, and that besmirches the cause of Ukrainian independence from its Russian aggressor? While at the same time Trump coddled hordes of brain-damaged white power trash, but we shouldn't hold that against him? Get real.

I would totally disagree. When something is gray, it should be identified as gray, no matter how many mental defectives say it's white or black.

What makes you think I know? I've been at this for almost 20 years and the only thing I can tell you is that it's unlikely it was Oswald.

So by your logic Trump is a National Socialist, because some of his supporters are National Socialists. Interesting.

Fox gave Crouch prints. Crouch allowed Lifton and Groden to photograph his prints, so those were copies of prints. He later had negatives made from his prints, and sold prints made from those negatives. As stated, he sold his original prints to Walt Brown. I asked Brown and others who know Brown if there is any way he can have them scanned and make them available. But nothing has happened.

Okay, so we are agreed this is the proper orientation of the photo. On the left side, I see what appears to be a bullet hole and a crack. This leads me to believe the skull is laying on its right side. if the scalp is reflected over the forehead, however, this presumed hole and crack are on the left side of the head. That is a problem, yes? There's also this. When I studied the photo under the assumption it showed the skull on its right side, I found a triangle of scalp on the mystery photo that matched up with a triangle of scalp in the other photos. This is shown below.

Jeez. I already posted pages and pages of quotes, most prominently from O'Connor and Jenkins, indicating the scalp was reflected to the left side. Neither Ed Reed nor Tim Robinson were involved in the removal of the brain. They would not know.

Yes, I assumed he'd purchased a set from Crouch. There's a few still floating around. But when I realized I had F9, which was included in the Crouch set, but never published by Lifton, etc, I was approached by a colleague of Mantik's to see if I could send it to him. I then told him I'd assumed MantiK had a set from Crouch--which would include F9. But he told me Mantik did not have a set from Crouch and did not have F9. Maybe he's received one in the intervening years, I don't know.

Admittedly, I'm confused. Is the image at bottom your image or not? I thought you posted this because you thought it was the proper orientation. Are you now acknowledging it is incorrect?

I suspect not. At one point I was approached by a colleague of Mantik's and asked if I could send him copies of the autopsy photos appearing on my website. I told him that I suspected David would have better copies and he told me he did not. As far as your first question, the Lancer website used to have high-res scans of if I recall Lifton's photos. The first generation prints that used to belong to Mark Crouch, that were the source of the b and w photos published by Lifton, Groden and Livingstone, were eventually sold to Walt Brown. Who apparently locked them away. I met Walt once and asked him to have hi-res scans of these put online or made available for sale but he didn't seem interested. Yet another reason to be skeptical about the "research" community, IMO.

To be clear, David, my positions on the WR and Arlen Specter are well-known. I have written books on it. I think the WR was a cover-up and think--no, know--Specter was full of it. So I can't imagine what set you off to the point you decided I was a WR supporter. It should also be noted that I have not been an active moderator since the Simkin years, but am still listed as one in case of emergency, such as when a long-time member of the forum flips out and starts raving at another long-time member of the forum. But that would never happen, now would it? Let me restate a few points from previous posts. I thought at first that your presentation of the Mantik orientation was deliberately deceptive. The jar and the presumed bullet hole were obscured, and the drainage hole was cropped off. If I understand you correctly, you claim this was unintentional. So I apologize. I also thought for a second that your top of the head photo had been altered, to make the round shape more round. But in looking through the various versions of the photo published by the likes of Lifton, Groden, and Livingstone, I am no longer confident of that conclusion. As shown, moreover, the morph gif of the two top of the head photos suggests this was just a lock of hair, or something else atop the skin, and not an actual hole. So I apologize for questioning that image.

Let it be noted that David J refuses to disavow anything by David M...and is now insisting the close up is in the same orientation as I have placed it for 15 years or so...and is acting like this is news to me! P.S. On closer inspection, I realize that the photo with what he claims is a bullet hole has been around awhile. This makes the gif morphing this with the other photo taken from this orientation quite helpful. It shows that what he claims is a hole is not a hole. And no, his bit about photoshop is nonsense. It makes no sense for "them" to alter one image of a top of the head photo no one was supposed to see but then fail to alter its partner. Here, moreover, is the right profile photo showing this area from a better angle. Is there a hole there? That went unseen by all the doctors at Parkland and Bethesda? I think not.

FWIW, I took a look at your supposed bullet hole in the top of the head photo, and it appears to have been photoshopped a bit. Here's your bullet hole. And here's a gif of the two top of the head photos showing that whatever that shape is, it's above the surface of the skin, and is most probably hair.

Thank you. You made my point. You have repeatedly presented an image of the mystery photo in Mantik's orientation, and then presented a close-up of the jar etc in my orientation. And there's a reason for this. As stated, Mantik's orientation is nonsense. It has the specimen jar at an angle and the drainage hole floating up in the air or on JFK'S chest, etc-- somewhere other than the table. Will you admit this, or are you so determined to suck up to team Mantik that you will pretend you can't see what everyone else on this thread can see?

Look at the white line above and to the right of the word skull. Now compare that line to the same line in the deceptive image you insist on reposting over and over. Mantik's orientation--which you keep reposting--is at odds with your close up above. Agreed?

So okay. That's the hair in the top of the head photo. So why would you mix the two photos together? It simply makes no sense. Unless...unless... you were taking a cue from Mantik and deliberately concealing aspects of the photo that prove his orientation is nonsense.

So who added the hair to conceal the bullet hole?

C'mon, David. Enough with the games. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. But Mantik's orientation for the mystery photo is obviously incorrect, and quite possibly a deliberate deception. Below is a comparison of his orientation and the actual photo. Note that 1) he has used a version of the photo with the drainage hole cropped off--which is mighty convenient seeing as he places it in the air aboveJFK's chest, 2) he has let the specimen jar be concealed in darkness--which is mighty convenient because in his orientation it is titled to one side, and 3) he has totally concealed the presumed bullet hole by the EOP by adding on a bunch of draped down hair in this region. It's a con.

You rotated the specimen jar in the close up from how it is presented by Mantik. Here is the proper orientation for the photo. Note the location of the drainage hole on the right side of the image. In Mantik's deception it is up in the air.