Sandy Larsen

The following April 5, 2021 New York Times article give details on how Paul Manafort was linked to Russian intelligence. The referenced (and linked) Treasury Department document gives the greatest details.

Biden Administration Says Russian Intelligence Obtained Trump Campaign Data

Following is an excerpt from the article:

The revelation, made public in a Treasury Department document announcing new sanctions against Russia, established for the first time that private meetings and communications between the [Trump] campaign officials, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and their business associate were a direct pipeline from the campaign to Russian spies at a time when the Kremlin was engaged in a covert effort to sabotage the 2016 presidential election.

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in August 2020 that Manafort's ties to individuals connected to Russian intelligence while he was Trump's campaign manager "represented a grave counterintelligence threat" by creating opportunities for "Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign."^[34]

From the same Wikipedia article, pertinent details regarding the Republican-Controlled Senate Intelligence Committee findings:

The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded in its August 2020 final report that as Trump campaign manager "Manafort worked with Kilimnik starting in 2016 on narratives that sought to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election" and to direct such suspicions toward Ukraine. The report characterized Kilimnik as a "Russian intelligence officer" and said Manafort's activities represented a "grave counterintelligence threat."^[172] The investigation found:

Manafort's presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for the Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. The Committee assesses that Kilimnik likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services, and that those services likely sought to exploit Manafort's access to gain insight [into] the Campaign...On numerous occasions over the course of his time of the Trump Campaign, Manafort sought to secretly share internal campaign information with Kilimnik...Manafort briefed Kilimnik on sensitive campaign polling data and the campaign's strategy for beating Hillary Clinton.^[173][174]

The Committee did not definitively establish Kilimnik as a channel connected to the hacking and leaking of DNC emails, noting that its investigation was hampered by Manafort and Kilimnik's use of "sophisticated communications security practices" and Manafort's lies during SCO interviews on the topic.^[175] The report noted:

"Manafort's obfuscation of the truth surrounding Kilimnik was particularly damaging to the Committee's investigation because it effectively foreclosed direct insight into a series of interactions and communications which represent the single most direct tie between senior Trump Campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services."^[175]

In April 2021, a document released by the U.S. Treasury Department announcing new sanctions against Russia confirmed a direct pipeline from Manafort to Russian intelligence, noting: “During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy”.^[176][177]

17 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Thus, concerning Mueller's Office of Special Counsel allegations that Manafort had breached the terms of his plea agreement by lying to the FBI and the OSC, of the 5 allegations, the Court found in favor of the government on 3, all of which were predicated upon Manafort's consulting work for the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine before Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. The Court specifically found that Manafort had not intentionally made false statements concerning Kilimnick's role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy, and that Manafort had not intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with the Trump administration.

It appears that that is not the whole story. According to this Wikipedia article:

On November 26, 2018, Mueller reported that Manafort violated his plea deal by repeatedly lying to investigators. On February 13, 2019, D.C. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson concurred, voiding the plea deal.^[22][23][24] On March 7, 2019, Judge T. S. Ellis III sentenced Manafort to 47 months in prison.^[25][26][27] On March 13, 2019, Jackson sentenced Manafort to an additional 43 months in prison.^[28][29] Minutes after his sentencing, New York state prosecutors charged Manafort with sixteen state felonies.^[30] On December 18, 2019, the state charges against him were dismissed because of the doctrine of double jeopardy.^[31][32][33] The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in August 2020 that Manafort's ties to individuals connected to Russian intelligence while he was Trump's campaign manager "represented a grave counterintelligence threat" by creating opportunities for "Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign."^[34]

^{(Bolding mine.)}

15 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Sandy I think you have done a great job of drawing out an essential and simple point: The autopsists stated that a fragment from the back of the head came in to them after the body.

Thanks Eddy.

15 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

They are therefore stating the skull had a large hole in the back. 

That's right! Though I would say that they "inadvertently admitted" there was a large hole in the back, since they didn't come right out and "state" it.

15 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Isn't there a flaw in your argument about the Z film showing the rear headshot? Isn't the head in the extant film at the wrong angle? I think it is. I think the Newmans saw this shot and it exited through the top/side of the head. Your trajectory doesn't have an exit.

I assume you are referring to this prior statement of mine from page 1 of this thread:

"If you carefully observe the Z film around 313, you will see that Kennedy's head was hit twice within a couple frames. The first one forced his head forward, and the second one back and to the left. The first one obviously is what entered near the EOP."

You are right, there is no trajectory that fits the EOP entrance at ~Z312, because the exit would be somewhere on the face. And of course there was no wound on the face.

Pat Speer pointed this out a few days ago and I agreed with him. I could think of only one way to resolve this problem, and I posted it on this thread:

According to the hypothesis described there, the bullet actually entered the forehead at the hairline and EXITED through the EOP hole.

BTW, I wouldn't place much stock in what the Newmans said they saw. They had no warning that there was about to be a blowout wound, and had no chance to study precisely where it was. The Parkland hospital doctors and nurses are much better witnesses. And they all place the gaping wound on the back of the head.'

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

While you claim there is a "ton of evidence" to back your contention, I'm disappointed that you chose not to produce any of it.

Some of the evidence is common knowledge. Other evidence I did produce in this thread, but you seem to have missed it.

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

If the large fragment with the bevel on the OUTSIDE of the bone is from the top of the head, that means the bullet exited the top of the head.

There were two large fragments  that were brought in to the autopsy, the "triangular" one and the 6.5 x 10 cm one that was brought in late. The triangular one fit on the top of the head. (There is an extant x-ray of the "triangular" fragment together with a couple other fragments.)

Since nobody saw a gaping wound on the top of the head, it is my belief that the hole on top of the head, as described in the autopsy report, was made by hitting the top of the head with a hammer and removing fragments after slashing the scalp open in clandestine pre-autopsy surgery. So this "surgery" is what created the large "triangular" fragment. The autopsists pretended it was brought in from Dallas.

The other large fragment was 6.5 x 10 cm one that really was brought in from Dallas. Only this one is mentioned by Sibert and O'Neill in their report. The report states that this fragment was brought in late and was kept by Dr. Humes (i.e. not put back in place by the morticians). The report states that this fragment was available for "further investigation."

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

This exit damage to the top of the head is not mentioned in the autopsy report.

You need to read the autopsy report again. It mentions a 13 cm (5 inch) hole on the top of the head above the right ear (my paraphrase). And it mentions an exit bullet hole, 2.5 to 3 cm in diameter, on the margin of that large hole.

I don't believe any of this is true, but it is there in the autopsy report.

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I also have a ton of evidence to support my contention that the fatal shot was fired from in front of the limo and it's all here in this 35 minute compilation video I've put together from different sources:

Well I'm in agreement with you.

But two of your premises are wrong IMO, one being that you have misinterpreted the mystery photo, and the other being that the "triangular" fragment came from the back of the head.

The fragment that came from the back of the head was the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment that was never put back in place because it arrived too late. That fragment was kept by Humes, and according to my hypothesis, later became the Harper fragment.

We have corroboration that the fragment from the back of the head wasn't put back in place from the morticians, who said they had to put a rubber dam the size of a large orange in the back of the head to cover the gaping hole, so that embalming fluid wouldn't leak out.

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

First, I can't see your link. It tells me that I don't have permission to observe the image --- error 403 "forbidden".

I think that Pat Speer got it right when he noticed a glass specimen jar in the Mystery Photo, which in my opinion (like his) proves that the photographer took that photo at an angle.

The angle-adjusted photo is on this page:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter14demystifyingthemysteryphoto

Search for the phrase "let there be light" on the page, without the quotation marks. The photo is right above that.

The left 1/4th of the photo is lightened so that we can see the glass specimen jar on the left side, a little bit hidden by skull and reflected scalp. The top part of this photo is the inside of reflected scalp, which reveals the frontal bone near the forehead.

21 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I believe that the exit was pretty much where the WC puts it—above the right ear, where James Jenkins noted a small hole (which he believed was an entrance)—but without the blowout depicted in their drawing. It was a small hole because there was already a blowout at the back of the head from the first shot, which let the energy dissipate out through that.

Which is fine if one believe that a secret service agent shot Kennedy in the head with his AR-15, because I guess the trajectory works out. But I don't believe that.

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

1. The FBI wasn't there when the skull was reconstructed, so how would they know what happened to the fragments after they left?

Apparently the FBI was still there after the autopsy. They said that Humes kept the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment, but would make it available for further study.

Or maybe the FBI learned later of the arrival of the fragment and Humes keeping it, and added that to their report later.

Or maybe the FBI and Humes left the autopsy at about the same time but didn't go home right away, and the fragment arrived then, too late to  have it re-inserted.

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

2. I believe you've claimed there was legitimate beveling on the Harper fragment but no beveling on the triangular fragment. If the Harper fragment was broken off the triangular fragment, where did the beveling come from? 

I've never said the Harper fragment was broken off the "triangular" fragment. I've always said that it was broken off from the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment. The "triangular" fragment and 6.5 x 10 cm fragment are not the same fragment, as I proved earlier.

The "triangular" fragment was inserted back into the skull at the top of the head. The 6.5 x 10 cm fragment would have been inserted into the back of the skull had it arrived in time.

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

3. And the morticians said small orange. Robinson told this to the HSCA and Van Hoesen told this to the ARRB. 

Large orange.

From this ARRB document:

Robinson said that Ed Stroble (now deceased) had cut out a piece of rubber to cover the open wound in the back of the head, so that the embalming fluid would not leak; the piece of rubber was slightly larger than the hole in the back of the head, and Robinson estimated that the rubber sheet was a circular patch about the size of a large orange (demonstrating this with a circular motion joining the index fingers and thumbs of his two hands).

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

1. The FBI left BEFORE the reconstruction was performed. Your claim the fragment arrived too late to be put back in during reconstruction is not supported by the evidence.

It isn't my claim... it is Sibert and O'Neill's claim.

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

2. The Harper fragment was a roughly 2 1/2 in triangle. You agree this was not put back in the head. The triangular fragment was a 10 by 6 1/2 cm triangle, or roughly 4 by 2 1/2 in. You can't have both of these missing from the back of the head and still have a back of the head. (If you think isn't so, please demonstrate.)

After the autopsy, loose pieces of the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment were broken off, leaving a roughly 2 1/2" triangular solid fragment. This was flown back to Dallas and dropped onto the grass in FRONT of where the limo was when the head shot was taken.

The plan was that someone would discover the fragment, and that person would become the star witness to the blowout wound "coming from top of the head as a result of a shot from behind."

The plan backfired on them when medically-connected Billy Harper found it and it was declared to be occipital. Doh!

That is my hypothesis. It explains how both a 6.5 x 10 cm fragment and the Harper fragment could fit on the back of the head. The two fragments were one and the same!

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

3. The doctors said that with the addition of the Harper fragment, the missing skull at the time of the reconstruction was accounted for. This confirms what Van Hoesen and Robinson recalled--that the hole on the back of the head they saw was the size of a "small orange". 

The morticians said that the rubber dam was the size of a large orange. Which would be large enough to cover the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment... which was the same as the Harper fragment but without the loose pieces broken off.

This theory explains all the evidence. Mystery solved!

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The FBI agents left before the skull was reconstructed and were apparently unaware what became of the fragments.

Wrong.

Most of the fragments, like the large "triangular" one, were re-inserted into the skull. We know that because the morticians didn't need to fabricate something to take their place.

As for the 6.5 x 10 cm fragment that was found in the the presidential limo and returned to the autopsy LATE, Sibert and O'Neill wrote:

The portion of the skull measuring 10 x 6.5 centimeters was maintained in the custody of Dr. HUMES who stated that it also could be made available for further examination.

Now, how in heaven's name could that fragment be made available for further examination if was put back into Kennedy's head? It wasn't put back.

The only reason you aren't suffering from cognitive dissonance on this issue, Pat, is because you simply ignore all evidence proving you are wrong. Well, that's probably a tactic that is good for your health... a "what, me worry?" attitude.

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The hole at the back of the skull at the end of reconstruction was roughly the size of the Harper fragment, which even you agree was not added back into the skull.

The rubber dam used to cover the remaining hole at the back of the head was the size of a large orange. Yep... large enough to cover a 6.5 x 10 cm hole.

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

 

I'm sorry Gil, but I disagree with most of your post.

I believe that your hypothesis is based on two false premises. First, I think that Pat Speer got it right when he noticed a glass specimen jar in the Mystery Photo, which in my opinion (like his) proves that the photographer took that photo at an angle.

This is the mystery photo after adjusting for the angle:

The left 1/4th of the photo is lightened so that we can see the glass specimen jar on the left side, a little bit hidden by skull and reflected scalp. The top part of this photo is the inside of reflected scalp, which reveals the frontal bone near the forehead.

Your other faulty premise is that you belief that the large "triangular" fragment is parietal bone from the BACK of the head. No, it is parietal bone from the TOP of the head and was removed from the skull (after possibly being made by hitting the head with a hammer) in the pre-autopsy clandestine surgery of the head, as mentioned by Humes and reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill. It and other such man-made fragments were introduced to the autopsy as if they'd been found in Dallas. Sibert and O'Neill makes no mention of those fragments being brought in.

However, Sibert and O'Neill DO mention a 6.5 x 10 cm fragment being brought in late. It was brought in so late that it could not be inserted back into Kennedy's skull. Humes kept it, but made it available for further study.

There is a ton of evidence that backs my contention.

2 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

True about X-rays not showing which side the smear was on, but I believe that it was noted by the Methodist doctors as being on the outside.

My recollection is that the Methodist doctors didn't even notice the metallic smear on the Harper fragment. I believe it wasn't until a researcher noticed it on the x-ray that it became known.

2 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

At any rate, Dr. Mantik said it was on the outside and told me in email that could only happen if it was an entrance.

Dr. Mantik's view is not uncontested.

2 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Given the autopsy doctors insistence on the EOP entry location ...

As I said, the autopsists were forced to say the EOP was a wound of entry, whether it was or not. Because otherwise a conspiracy would be indicated.

2 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

...and Mantik’s skull reconstruction with the HF and the small fragment with the partial entry wound that the autopsy doctors had, that all makes sense.

Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment doesn't necessitate that the wound was one of entrance. Only the beveling/tabling and metallic smear on the fragment determines that.

NOTE TO READERS:

If the small EOP wound is indeed one of entrance, that presents the problem of explaining where the bullet went. That is the reason I am being very cautious accepting this belief.

In contrast, forum member Denise Hazelwood is happy to accept this belief because it supports her theory that a secret service agent shot and killed Kennedy with his AR-15. By accident, I believe.

On 3/30/2024 at 12:41 PM, Pat Speer said:

The "triangular fragment" was nicknamed as such by Randy Robertson, based upon his viewing of the x-rays of this fragment. Your using this description to imply the "triangular fragment" is a different fragment from the 10 by 6.5 cm fragment is ill-founded, as the proportions of the fragment on the x-ray are that of the fragment described in the FBI's report. The fragments are one and the same.

Pat is completely wrong here. We are definitely talking about two different large skull fragments, not one. And I can prove it.

First, if you look at the x-ray of the large "triangular" fragment, you can easily see that it cannot be described as having oblong dimensions. So it cannot be the same fragment as the one whose reported dimensions were "10 x 6.5", which is an oblong dimension.

But my case is much stronger than that. The large "triangular" fragment (above) was inserted back into the skull by mortician John Van Hoesen, whereas the 10 x 6.5 cm one wasn't. It was brought into the autopsy too late to be inserted back into the skull. (In fact, a large rubber dam had to be inserted in its place to prevent leakage of embalming fluid.) Therefore the two fragments cannot be the same.

If you don't believe me, read the second and the last paragraphs of page 6 of the Sibert & O'Neill FBI Report of the autopsy's proceedings. The 6.5 x 10 cm fragment was retained by Humes but made available for further inspection.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image5.htm

19 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I contend that this point was the exit for the AR-15 bullet that entered at the EOP.

Denise,

Please take your AR-15 shot theory to another thread. This thread is about the missing EOP-adjacent fragment that the autopsists revealed, not about any theory that it supports.

You can reference individual posts of this thread in your own thread if that is helpful to you.

Thanks.

18 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

To clarify, the smear was on the outside of the Harper fragment, which is how the area was determined to be an entrance. I don’t think any determination was made regarding “beveling.” Or where such beveling was located.

What makes you think the smear was on the outside of the Harper fragment? It can be seen only in the x-ray, and it is impossible to tell from an x-ray which side of a bone (or anything else) an object is.

As for the beveling, looking very closely at the inside and outside photos reveals no apparent beveling. Only shelving. And the shelving is present on both the inside and outside of the fragment.

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Did anyone watch 60 Minutes tonight? I didn't, but apparently there was a major story on "Havana Syndrome".

Here is the 60 Minutes program on Havana Syndrome:

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/havana-syndrome-russia-evidence-60-minutes/

EDIT:  I see now that Matt posted the same thing, except on YouTube.

On 3/30/2024 at 10:19 AM, Pat Speer said:

Well, we're largely agreed on this, Sandy. But it should be noted that in 1968 the Justice Dept. convened a secret panel to address the trajectory problem, and this panel relocated the entrance wound after looking at the photos, but without talking to the doctors, or even being shown the 1966 inventory of the photos written by the doctors. This was the Clark Panel. The HSCA Panel, which was put together nine years later, and was comprised of close colleagues and/or former students of the Clark Panel's de facto leader, Russell Fisher, merely confirmed the Clark Panel's findings re the cowlick entrance. 

But that's not to let them off the hook. The HSCA Panel had access to both the doctors' original inventory of the photos, and the doctors themselves, but nevertheless spent much of their time trying to convince the doctors they were wrong, as opposed to trying to understand why their pal Russell Fisher would move a wound to a location where no one saw a wound. 

Now, Dr. Wecht was a member of this panel, and I have asked him about this. And he has insisted that these men, including his good friend Dr. Baden, were not lying, but were blinded by...confirmation bias. It was unthinkable to them that 1) Russell Fisher could be wrong and Dr. Humes right, 2) there were in fact two bullet entries on the skull and thus a conspiracy, and 3) a bullet could enter low and exit high without leaving a noticeable path through the brain. So the only way to make this work was to claim the autopsy doctors (along with a number of other witnesses) were incorrect, and had misidentified an entrance hole high on the skull with an entrance hole four inches lower, and not only that, but that a photo originally described as showing a bullet entrance on the back of the skull actually showed a bullet exit on the front of the skull.

It boggles the mind. It's cognitive dissonance on parade. 

Of course, we see similar parades on this forum every day. 

Thanks for the details, Pat.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Ok. Since Dr. Boswell's fourteen years later claim a piece of bone was brought in to complete the entrance hole near the EOP, has been so wildly misrepresented...

It wasn't misrepresented by me. I merely quoted what the autopsists said.

(Later, Pat asked and in response I did outline my hypothesis on the Harper fragment. Which I suppose he could have thought of as a misrepresentation.)

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I thought I would remind people of what [Boswell] actually said. 

Except that you added your own phrase to what Boswell said. I correct it here:

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

During their meeting with the HSCA doctors Boswell and Humes were discussing how far they had to cut to get to the small entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head.

Then Boswell said: "not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment (of the fragments x-rayed on the night of the autopsy) fit this piece down here--there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact, and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface."

(Pat should learn to put his own comments in square brackets.]

Pat is conflating the three triangular fragments x-rayed on the night of the autopsy with the occipital fragment that Boswell speaks of here. The one that is the topic of this thread.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So [Boswell] specified that it was a small fragment--and not the large fragment--that completed this hole. Well, that sinks Randy Robertson's claim he was talking about the large fragment, and that it matched up with the cowlick entrance. (If I remember his theory correctly.)

I don't have any idea if what Pat says here is true or not. I don't know what Randy Robertson's theory is, and the topic of the thread isn't his theory.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

And this fragment was brought into the autopsy. Well, that sinks Dr. Mantik's claim it was the Harper fragment, which was not brought into the autopsy.

Dr. Mantik should ask me about my Harper fragment hypothesis. It explains how it came about that the autopsists saw the Harper fragment at the autopsy, and how it ended up in Dealey Plaza the following day.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, should one convince oneself the Harper fragment WAS brought into the autopsy, one still has to overcome that Humes and Boswell claimed they were unaware of the Harper fragment's existence on 11-22-63...

Did they in fact deny it?

If Humes and Boswell even remembered the back-of-head fragment coming in late -- what it looked like -- they would realize that they couldn't own up to it... given that doing so would reveal a hole in the back of Kennedy's head. Something that they worked so hard to hide.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

...and that Boswell specified that it was the smallest fragment that completed the entrance hole. Well, this rules out the Harper fragment, as it was anything but small. 

First, Pat assumes that Dr. Boswell was referring to one of the three triangular fragments (that were x-rayed at the autopsy) when Boswell spoke of the skull fragment from the back of the head. There is no reason to assume or believe that.

Further, Pat claims that the fragment from the back of the head was the smallest of the three triangular fragments. He says that because Dr. Boswell at one time said, "this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface."  Pat figures, therefore, that the fragment from the back of the head was too small to be the Harper fragment.

Problem is, "small" is a relative term. In that very same sentence Dr. Boswell said, "not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here."  Here, Boswell refers to the fragment as being "smaller," not "small." Smaller than what? My guess is that he meant smaller than the large triangular fragment (among the three that were x-rayed at the autopsy).

But, to put this issue to rest, let me remind the reader of something Dr. Finck told the the WC regarding this fragment from the back of the head:

"In the case we are discussing today, it was possible to have enough curvature and enough portion of the crater to identify positively the wound of entrance at the site of the bone."

We learn from this that the fragment was large enough that it could be determined, from the curvature of the fragment, which side of it was from the inside of the skull and which side was from the outside. The Harper fragment was just large enough that the curvature could be discerned.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Shot #1: EOP entrance as described by the autopsy doctors and confirmed by the lead smear on the Harper fragment near the EOP when the fragment is placed in Mantik's orientation. No known exit for this bullet. No evidence this bullet was ever found. (Their theory is in trouble from the get-go. All credible experts on skull anatomy have concluded the Harper fragment is parietal bone and NOT occipital bone, and that's not even to mention that the beveling at the site of the lead smear Mantik claims to be an entrance is EXIT beveling and not entrance beveling.)

I resolve these difficulties here:

Harper fragment photos and x-rays.

Inset shows lead smear.

Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment:

The JFK autopsy report notes a small entrance wound on the skull near the EOP (external occipital protuberance), which is the bump down low on the back of peoples' heads.

JFK's autopsists all revealed -- either directly, indirectly, or accidentally -- that there was a bone fragment missing from adjacent to the EOP wound site at the autopsy. That is the topic of the following recent thread of mine:

In that thread, Pat Speer made the following important and correct observation:

"[Regarding the] EOP entrance as described by the autopsy doctors and confirmed by the lead smear on the Harper fragment near the EOP when the fragment is placed in Mantik's orientation... [Mantik's] theory is in trouble from the get-go. [It has] no known exit for this bullet... not even to mention that the beveling at the site of the lead smear Mantik claims to be an entrance is EXIT beveling and not entrance beveling."

So, even though all indications are that there indeed was a small wound near the EOP, along with a missing fragment adjacent to it, it has yet to be explained where that bullet went. In addition, if the missing fragment is indeed the Harper fragment as is believed by Mantik and others, it has yet to be explained how it is that the beveling and lead smear on the Harper fragment indicates the wound to be one of exit, not entrance.

I'm glad that Pat brought those difficulties up, as they sparked in my mind an idea that might explain all this. Upon studying my idea, I believe that it is indeed correct and does solve these problems!

Solution to The Problems

The solution is very simple.

We know that at Bethesda efforts were made to make it appear that all gunshots came from behind. For example, the pre-autopsy clandestine head surgery that resulted in the large opening in the top of Kennedy's head.

One thing that was done, in my opinion, is this: When the small wound was found in the margin of the the occipital bone near the EOP, it was immediately determined to be an EXIT wound due to the beveling being on the outside of the skull. (Keep in mind, I am talking about the tiny hole, not the bone fragment we know as the Harper fragment.) This meant that a bullet had to have entered from the front of Kennedy's head. Which contradicted the goal of the autopsy, to make all gunshots be from the rear!

The autopsists' solution? Simple... just reverse what they saw and report that the beveling of the hole was on the inside, not the outside, thereby indicating the EOP wound was one of entrance!

This resolves both problems that Pat pointed out. Since the EOP wound was one of exit, the bullet exited the head at that location! No missing bullet. And since the EOP wound was one of exit, that explains how it is that the Harper fragment indicates exactly that!

The only remaining thing to confirm is that the trajectory of a bullet entering a forehead hairline wound and exiting the EOP wound could have come from a rifleman stationed at a reasonable location.

Let's look at Z312:

As can be seen here, a gunman standing on the south knoll or perhaps the south end of the overpass could have shot Kennedy at the forehead hairline and it would have exited at roughly the location of the EOP.

Problem solved!

The topic of this thread is the fragment lost from the back of the head near the EOP, as revealed by two autopsists and implied in the autopsy report.

It is not about the three headshot theory. That is the topic of another thread.

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My theory (which is shared by others) explains the need for the Oct. 10 cables, and the need for disinformation to be placed in them. Therefore, there is no need to explain them otherwise.

Because of this, I experience severe cognitive dissonance when I try to read the mole hunt part of State Secret.

On 3/31/2024 at 6:57 AM, David McLean said:

Bill, Sandy Et Al, would  it be true to say the Oswald Legend, whether the subject was witting or not, had been used to ferret out a mole or moles amongst US agencies, but after the September/October 1963 impersonations “Oswald Legend variants”became marked cards to a-identify a mole or two and more urgently b-identify the impersonators and therefore theJFKA plotters who framed Lee?

And what are the implications that may logically follow?

David,

My theories explaining 1) the multiple impersonations of Oswald including in Mexico City and 2) the disinformation transmitted in the Oct. 10 cables, leave no room for a mole hunt theory. (Note that my theory #1 is shared by others, including the esteemed Peter Dale Scott.)

In a nutshell, what I believe is that Oswald was never in Mexico City, and that the whole MC escapade was a CIA operation designed to make it appear to post-assassination investigators (the FBI) that Oswald and some of his associates drove to MC to finalize plans with the Cubans and Soviets to have Oswald's team assassinate Kennedy.

There is plenty of (planted/fake) evidence supporting this theory: Oswald meeting with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov (a.k.a. Kostin); Oswald's affair with Cuban Consulate employee Silvia Duran; Oswald's relationship with dignitaries at  Duran hosted party; the $6500 down payment paid to Oswald in the Cuban Consulate for the kill; the arrest of Duran and her associates immediately after the assassination.

For this plan to work, the CIA plotters needed to have a way for the FBI to discover the (fake) Oswald trip to MC. (Otherwise they would have never discovered the (fake) Cuban and Soviet involvement.) This was accomplished by the Oswald impersonator at the Cuban Consulate making the phone call to the Russian Embassy, and giving out his name, Lee Oswald. Which, of course, was recorded by American surveillance phone taps.

Furthermore, for the FBI to later discover this, the CIA had to report this call to the various agencies, as was their duty. The problem with reporting the call is that it could raise a red flag on Oswald on October 10, which would ruin the assassination plan. The CIA solved this problem by inserting disinformation into the cables... that is to say, the wrong description. In addition, the name -- Lee HENRY Oswald -- was wrong. (HENRY had been used in Oswald's 201 for years, and was there for another reason.)

On the very same day that the CIA plotters sent the intentionally disinforming cables, the FBI took Oswald off of their watch list. Surely the CIA plotters were behind that move as well.

And so, Oswald could take a job at the TSBD and not be flagged as a security risk for the upcoming Kennedy motorcade.

The bottom line is this:

My theory explains the need for the Oct. 10 cables, and the need for disinformation to be placed in them. Therefore, there is no need to explain them otherwise.

The sole purpose of the mole hunt concept is to explain the disinformation. With my theory, the disinformation is explained and the mole hunt concept is moot.

P.S. The mole hunt concept also attempts to explain problems in the MC telephone calls. But my theory has an explanation for those too.