Sandy Larsen

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." 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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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).

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

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. 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.

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.

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. Dr. Mantik's view is not uncontested. 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. 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for the details, Pat.

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

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.

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

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.

I said that very few witnesses placed the gaping wound on the top of the head. And those are the least reliable witnesses... the ones not expecting to see anything, but then saw brain flying for just a moment. The best witnesses are the Parkland Hospital professionals. And almost all of them said the wound was on the back of the head. You have absolutely no credibility on this topic. 10 x 6.5 is oblong in shape. The large triangular fragment is close to equilateral... in no way could it be described as 10 x 6.5. The two fragments are not the same. Nope. And I don't know where that fragment fit. Sgt. Stavis Ellis said that he saw a secret service agent take the fragment from a child in Dealey Plaza and toss it in the back seat of the limo before it sped off. Gerald Behn, Roy Kellerman, and Clint Hill all saw the fragment in the limo while in Dallas. It was found in the back seat by Sam Kinney as the limo was being transported back to Washington. He's the one who said it reminded him of a clay pot. Sam Kinney sent a message to Admiral Burkley informing him of the fragment and letting him know he was taking it directly to the White House. FBI agents met Kinney at the White House garage and took possession of the fragment there. Presumably they are the ones who took it to the autopsy. I don't know who returned the fragment to Dealey Plaza the following day because that is merely a part of my hypothesis... speculation designed to connect the known dots.

There was a serious breakdown in intelligence sharing between agencies. Even Steven Sund's department dropped the ball. According to this article: Sund told the lawmakers that he didn’t know then that his officers had received a report from the FBI’s field office in Norfolk, Virginia, that forecast, in detail, the chances that extremists could bring “war” to Washington the following day. The head of the FBI’s office in Washington has said that once he received the Jan. 5 warning, the information was quickly shared with other law enforcement agencies through a joint terrorism task force. But I don't see anything nefarious about it. It looks like a lack of planning to me. Appropriate procedures hadn't been set in place. However, once the riot began, there should have been no excuse for not bringing in the National Guard. The decision not to was just plain incompetence.

No, it really doesn't need it's own thread. It's very simple. Three autopsists who held Kennedy's head in their hands all saw a beveled entrance wound near the EOP (the bump that is low on the back of the head). And that is what was entered in the autopsy report. Then twelve or thirteen years later, a group of so-called experts for the HSCA claimed the hole was 4 inches higher, in the cowlick area. These guys didn't even have Kennedy's head... only drawings of photographs of it. And yet they had the nerve to say that the autopsists were all wrong. Funny thing though... the movement of that hole to the cowlick area magically solved the problem the WC had had with the trajectory of the bullet -- which didn't work at all for them. What amazing luck! <end sarcasm> You're skirting the issue, Francois. (Though I know you must. You have no answer.) EOP location or cowlick. Don't need to be an expert to understand. Holding head in hands, or looking at drawings. Don't need to be an expert to understand. Problem with trajectory. Problem with trajectory fixed. Don't need to be an expert to understand. Of course it was meant to deceive, Francois! It was meant to explain how a bullet from the 6th floor of the TSBD could enter the head down low at the EOP, and then change direction and exit from the top of the head! Just like when Arlen Specter moved the back wound up to make the Magic Bullet Theory work, the HSCA moved the EOP wound up to make that trajectory work. How anybody can be fooled by something so simple is beyond me. Maybe that's what happens when a person reads Case Closed... their thinking gets all mushy.

Yeah, right! LOL

Almost nobody said that. Almost all the witnesses said they saw the gaping wound on the back of the head. There were at least two entries of skull fragments. FBI Agent Sibert wrote of 6.5 cm x 10 cm one in his report. (I don't think he reported anything regarding the three triangular fragments.) For the HSCA, he said that a large fragment came in that was found in the limousine. That's the one I've been talking about. Sibert wrote this in a 9/1/98 letter to Vince Palamara: "...In answering your two questions, the head wound, which was called the fatal wound by the pathologists, was located in the right rear portion of the head. A piece of the skull was missing which was found in the limousine and brought to the autopsy room during the latter stages of the autopsy." There were numerous witnesses to this clay-pot looking fragment that came in late. These aren't "unknown" people. There is documentation on who saw and handled the fragment, and how it made its way to Bethesda. There is much more information regarding this fragment than there is on the three triangular fragments! The fragment was taken to Bethesda to give to the autopsists... naturally. My hypothesis is that it was brought in too late to insert it back in the skull. (Which is why the mortician had to place a rubber dam back there.) So neither the autopsists nor the mortician had any use for it. (Note: I believe that the purpose of the Bethesda autopsy and clandestine pre-autopsy surgery was to make it appear that all shots came from the rear.) Continuing on with my hypothesis... One of the coverup artists got this "brilliant" idea to return the fragment, or a piece of it, to the scene of the crime, Dealey Plaza. The idea was to plant it on the lawn in a location in FRONT of the limo. Somebody would discover it and, voila, they'd have a star witness saying that the fragment was found in front of, not behind, the limo. And therefore the shot came from behind. Unfortunately for the coverup artist, the person who found the fragment had close ties to medical professionals. And they unanimously identified the fragment as coming from the occipital bone. Doh! And the rest is history. 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. It all fits together like a glove.