Pat Speer

I posted a GIF of the two photos he was talking about above. As you can see the central part of the photos he claims to have been an identical matte is no such thing, as there are subtle differences in the relationship of individual strands of hair and the scalp etc. Here it is again.

Yes. People believe Mantik because he has those letters after his name and they are desperate to have an "expert" tell them what they want to believe. But he has embraced or at least failed to distance himself from some of the loopiest stuff imaginable, and is erratic as heck. Some time ago I realized that he thought the large triangular fragment was frontal bone...which meant that in his view there were two holes on the head (one on the occipital bone and one on the frontal bone). And I pointed this out to Sandy. Well, Sandy couldn't believe Mantik thought there was a hole on the top of the head of any kind and contacted him, and to Sandy's credit, reported back what Mantik told him. Mantik told Sandy I was incorrect because he actually believed there was ONE giant hole on the head from the back of the head between the ears all the way to the forehead...and that the front part of this wound went unobserved at Parkland. (I subsequently realized that Mantik had publicly proclaimed as much in an online presentation.) Well, this is totally at odds with Horne's claim the shots left but one much smaller hole in the middle of the back of the head. To be clear, here is what Horne has claimed the wound looked like at Parkland. And here is what Mantik says the wound looked like upon arrival at Bethesda. Now, this totally undermines Horne's claim there was no hole on the top of the head prior to Humes creating such a wound. So WHY won't Mantik admit he disagrees with Horne's claim Humes created the wound on the top of the head? And why does he continue to promote Horne's work and hall him as the greatest researcher or whatever? The same reason he won't distance himself from Fetzer, IMO. Mantik enjoys being at the center of a cadre of people making bizarre claims. And as it turns out there's a method to their madness. The forward to his new book--his supposedly final book--includes claims the deep state that killed JFK has taken over the country in the form of Joe Biden and has also taken over the Catholic Church. (The former Archbishop who wrote this forward has since been ex-communicated.) But my point stands. If Mantik doesn't believe the stuff pushed by Fetzer, Horne, and now Vigano, why won't he say as much? I think we can suspect he simply likes saying crazy stuff and being around people saying crazy stuff.

That's so sad.

There was NO "stereographic testing" performed by Mantik. He looked at the two photos and said "Hey, the back of the head in the two photos looks the same to me! It must have been added on." But he was wrong. As I proved a decade ago, and as Horne admitted even before, there are differences in the back of the head on the photos and the hair is not a matte.

If you're gonna "believe" Brugioni's 50 years-on memories, then, yes, the film may have been altered. But what was altered in the film? A cadre of researchers have taken from Brugioni's statements that the film was altered to hide an explosion from the back of the head, and add an explosion from the top of the head. But Brugioni never said anything about seeing an explosion from the back of the head, and thought the the explosion from the top of the head in the film he saw was MORE explosive than the explosion from the top of the head in the current film. That's not kosher, IMO. It would be like taking someone's description of an albino assailant to claim the white guy accused of hitting him was innocent, while claiming the real assailant was a black man. P.S. People routinely misremember what shocks them. A shock elicits an emotional response. Emotions blur recollections. By way of example, people who were suddenly attacked routinely recall their attacker as being bigger and more menacing in appearance than they actually appeared.

I think there was one witness to say she saw someone moving the boxes around after the shots were fired. I'm skeptical about this person actually moving the boxes just back of the window. (We know Box B was on the window ledge because it was captured in photos within seconds of the shooting.) But the possibility exists in my mind that the sniper had a stack of boxes behind him (to assure no one ran up on him from behind), And then moved those out of the way to make his exit.

I sat in Brennan's position to see if one could get a good look at the sniper's nest shooter from that location. One could not if the shooter was indeed sitting on a box. For Brennan to have seen a face in that window the person would have to have been kneeling right in front of the window, and not standing back behind the window as Brennan claimed or sitting on Box D as pushed by the Commission.

It's not as simple as that. While Gary Mack was a pain in the A for many CT's, he nevertheless remained a CT even till the end. Since his passing, Stephen Fagan has been the guy in charge of content, and he has reached out to the conspiracy community. Heck, he even invited Cyril Wecht to the museum for an interview before an audience. In my dealings, the 6th floor museum has been quite helpful. Sure, I took the tour and was bit annoyed that it focused on Oswald as the likely culprit. But I was surprised to see it did have a display on the HSCA which included its conclusion a second shooter was likely. So I don't think most of those visiting the museum come out convinced it was Oswald acting alone. If you visit the museum, moreover, or even its website, you will be given access to many oral histories of witnesses...many of whom say they thought the shots came from a different direction or that they thought there was more to it than Oswald. So one can't honestly say the museum is out to deceive, IMO. Heck, at one point I became convinced that someone sitting on the window box in the sniper's nest--the box Oswald supposedly sat upon as he calmly shot Kennedy--would not be able to see the limo in its location for the supposed first shot. And Steve Fagan did me a solid and went up there and took pictures from this position...that proved me correct. Well, that's not the behavior of a cover-up artist, IMO.

The two "missing" warehouse workers were Oswald and Givens. But there were a few office workers if I recall that never came back from lunch. P.S. I looked back through Hillary's first book to see what she said about JFK's death, and I found that she said it was a blow to her family and friends, that was magnified by RFK's death, but couldn't find anything about her not trusting the official solution. So my memory is fuzzy on this. I think I may have been mixing her statements in with those of Clinton associate Web Hubbell in his book. As I recall he said he was determined upon Clinton's becoming President to gain access to the JFK files because he never believed the official solution. I think I probably assumed from this that Hillary shared his views. But have no evidence to support this that I can remember at this time.

I think her brother's name was John. One of my best friends was friends with him at Frost Junior High.

Pimp? Hilarious. It's FREE. I created a website with more info and analysis than any 10 books written by others. And that's because I thought people should have a place to go to find such stuff and not be forced into buying the many many crappy books on the case that do no stand the test of time. But enough with that. I see you are a Van Halen fan. Well, you might be interested in knowing I went to high school with Valerie Bertinelli.

The experts hired to study the photos concluded the photos are consistent with one another. Those viewing the body have for the most part said the photos depict what they saw...with one major exception--the back of the head photo. A number of those viewing the photos have said they thought the scalp was being pulled up to conceal the rear-most portion of the wound. The comparison I've provided proves they were correct. There is a faction in JFK-land that wants you to believe the witnesses thought there was a hole in the middle of the back of the head, and that the top of the back of the head was intact. Years ago, Millie Cranor, Jim D's go-to person on the medical evidence, was asked to debunk my website or some such thing. In any event, her main complaint was that I spent so much time arguing against this low boh blow-out, when she claimed no one was really pushing this. She failed to realize that the Lifton Fetzer Mantik Horne wing has been pushing this for decades.

Hill continues to say the right rear portion was missing while pointing it out in the location shown above. I believe he is talking about the top of the head when viewed from above. In such case the area he points out as missing was the right rear portion.

Which photo? You should realize that the photo at the left is the one people think is fake, and the photo at right is a photo of JFK's back, with the head (which is frequently cropped off the photo when published) in the photo as an after-thought. Several years back I discovered that the morph gifs of the back of the head photos proved the top of the back of the head was a flap that was being held up by Boswell's hand. Well, I reasoned, if this is true then this flap would not be covering up the top of the back of the head when the hand was not holding It up. I then remembered that there was a version of the back photo in which the head can be seen. I performed the comparison I have shared and voila! it's clear the top of the back of the head in the boh photo is being held up by the hand, and that the photos show the same body. SO... if the photo at right--which perfectly matches the other photo except for the skull flap's being held up--is of a different body--then that would necessitate the evil "they" using a body with the top of the back of the head missing... which makes no freakin' sense if the purpose of this fakery was to convince people the shot came from the rear and exit from the front of the head.

Ok. But the point still stands. Much as Bugliosi used transcripts for the unedited mock trial testimony for his book--and never made these transcripts available to anyone else--Russo has access to interviews that were never broadcast or published. This can rightfully lead one to suspect they are hiding something. Release the damn things. There's probably nothing very explosive about them. But they should be made available. P.S. After reading Bugliosi's book and noting his reliance upon transcripts for the mock trial which included testimony never broadcast, I contacted Gerry Spence to see if he had the full transcript and could make that available through the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Well, Spence was not happy. He said he was unaware that a full transcript existed and was displeased that one was provided Bugliosi but not himself. When I brought this situation to the attention of Bugliosi's biggest fan, DVP, he agreed with me and as I recall contacted Bugliosi to see if the transcript could be released. But met a stone wall.

Thanks, Joe. Hill would almost certainly say that is what he saw. He has pointed out the wound location many times over the years, and he inevitably points to a location on the top and side of the head above and behind the right ear--where skull is obviously missing in the photo.

If you look at the photo on the right--the one in which the scalp is not being held up--you will see that the top of the back of the head is not visible. This is consistent with the x-rays. The crown of the skull was fractured but still attached to the scalp. It fell into the skull in this photo, but would flop out when JFK was on his back. This would make the wound appear far more rearward that it is shown on the photo at left--in which the skull flap is held up. A number of witnesses viewing the so-called back of the head photo have said they thought the photo at left was deceptive and that scalp was pulled up to conceal the hole. The implication was that the hole was where scalp is visible on the photo. My photo exhibit proves they were right. The top part of the scalp in the photo at left would not have been seen by those viewing JFK while he was lying on his back. Those pushing that the hole was LOW on the skull however have considered this treason, because their pet theory holds that the low back of the head in this photo was added in as a matte--something which has been proved to be untrue. As we've seen, however, countless times in recent years, people generally prefer the myth to the facts, when the facts might force them to admit they'd been duped.

I should have known you would go back and pull out the same old cherry-picked stuff. Remember... even McClelland said he failed to suspect the shot came from the front prior to his viewing the Zapruder film... Well, this is important because Mantik and his minions propose there was a wound too large to be an entrance wound in a location inconsistent with its being an exit wound for a shot fired from behind. In their view this wound MUST have been an exit wound for a shot fired from in front. Well, think about it. In proposing these witnesses failed to identify an obvious exit wound for a shot fired from the front, the Lifton, Fetzer, Mantik, Horne school of JFK silliness holds these men were either too stupid or too ascared to state what is obvious to anyone. Now I have talked with Lifton and Fetzer about this over the years and both of them told me that the prime Parkland witnesses--essentially Carrico, Baxter, Perry, Jenkins, and Clark--and even people like Hill, were scared little rabbits and liars. Do you agree? Are the doctors who got the best look at Parkland who went on to describe a wound seemingly on the back of the head in their early statements cowards and liars for not stepping up and arguing with the conclusions of the Warren Commission? Or maybe just maybe the wound they saw was NOT in a location which would lead them to immediately assume the shot came from the front?

I noticed years ago that the statements of those interviewed by Russo for PBS were far more extensive in Russo's book than they were on television. This leads me to believe Russo himself has copies of the original interviews. If so, these should be shared with the research community. I mean, it's not like evil PBS is going to turn his life upside down if he gives Rex Bradford access to tapes he recorded while working for PBS. PBS was mostly funded by the public. Russo was paid to conduct the interviews. Let the public hear what it rightfully owns.

You're relying on second hand info, Robert. If you did as much digging into this as you have LBJ you would realize that the supposed occipital blow-out is a con. There is no indication whatsoever that people like Carrico, Jenkins, Sibert, and Hill ever inspected the low occipital area of JFK's skull and thought it was missing. What they saw, IMO, is what is shown on the right below...this...

Yeah, that's it. LBJ is told on the 20th that Garrison is saying it can be traced back to him. LBJ then tells Clark to look into this because he should know what's going on. This indicates an increased awareness in Ferrie, who was reputed to be Garrison's main source. Two days later Ferrie is found dead, a suicide or possible murder made to look like a suicide. But the coroner says it was by natural causes. That Ferrie was central to the LBJ's concerns is proved moreover by the fact Clark calls LBJ back on the 22nd to discuss Ferrie's death. It smells, IMO.

I actually went back and deleted my post within 2-3 minutes of posting it, as it's clear you have a brain-block on this issue which makes discussing this with you a total waste of time. 1. Cognitive psychologists and historians do not pretend people's perceptions are a roll of the dice or a turn of a card. They do not estimate "probabilities" of truth based on the number of people who have at one point in their life made a certain claim. 2. Your numbers are skewed. You deliberately exclude the statements of men like Jenkins and Carrico, who would come to claim they were mistaken, and the testimony of men like Clark, who said their recollections were consistent with the official story. 3. You perhaps inadvertently engage in a bait-and-switch. You use the statements of people stating the wound was high on the back of the head to debunk photos you think show a wound on the top of the head, and then claim their statements support the work of men like Mantik and Horne, who hold that the wound was low on the back of the head. 4. You obsessively attack those who agree with me by claiming they are "followers" when, in fact, they have just followed common sense. I noticed this awhile back. I think it was last year sometime when you began claiming that I was holding the research community back by disavowing the nonsense of men like Doug Horne, who you apparently "follow." You failed to realize that Horne is on the fringe, that relatively mainstream CTs like Aguilar and Thompson think his theories are mostly nonsense, and that the Fetzer-Mantik-Horne wing holding that everything has been altered by the deep state is currently aligning itself with the Neo-fascists.

Interesting. I don't think the shots on that video align with the presumed shots picked up by the microphone in the NYT analysis. This story is till unfolding. It may be awhile before we get a clear picture of which shot caused Trump's injury.

I met the author at a conference and spoke to her for a half-hour or so. If I recall she was totally open-minded about the Bowers case but ultimately concluded his death was sad but not suspicious.

Of all the suspicious deaths of the sixties, the one I find most suspicious is Ferrie's. Due mostly to the timing... To be clear, when I was performing a deep dive on the LBJ/RFK rivalry I realized that Ramsey Clark told LBJ about Ferrie, and that Ferrie may have implicated him. And then like four days later Ferrie was dead. It's hard for me to write that one off.