Michael Griffith

The perversity is your peddling of disgraceful Russian propaganda. The "proxy war against Russia"??? That is a truly sick joke. Ukraine did nothing to provoke Putin's aggression. Ukraine is a liberal democracy. It is none of Putin's business if Ukraine wants to join a defensive alliance or to join the European Union. You remind me of the people in the so-called "anti-war movement" during the Vietnam War. They whitewashed North Vietnam, one of the most brutal and repressive regimes on Earth, and demonized the anti-communist regime of South Vietnam. And when the Hanoi regime finally won, thanks in no small part to the American anti-war movement, those same protestors who had railed against every real and imagined human rights violation in South Vietnam suddenly fell silent when the Hanoi regime executed tens of thousands of South Vietnamese and sent hundreds of thousands of others to concentration camps, where the death rate was at least 5%. The so-called "anti-war protestors" said not a peep about these horrific crimes.

The lapel flip is meaningless. The lapel flip occurs nowhere near the exit wound in Connally's chest. The lapel flip was caused by the wind that was gusting intermittently in Dealey Plaza. If one assumes that Connally was hit at Z224, one needs to explain why Connally shoulder does not get slammed downward until Z238. If one assumes that the Z224 shot hit JFK first, one needs to explain what in the world caused JFK to freeze his waving motion, snap his head to the left, begin to bring his hands up to his throat. One also needs to explain how in the world JFK's left hand is clearly reaching for his throat in Z224. The alleged Z224 SBT shot is sheer silliness. There is a shot at Z224, but it's the second shot to hit JFK--it's the one that knocks him visibly forward and causes his hands and elbows to be flung upward and forward starting in Z226.

The surest and quickest way for Ukraine to defeat Putin's criminal invasion would be for us to give Ukraine ample fighter jets and bombers, which would enable them to take the offensive in a decisive way. I give Biden full credit for finally agreeing to give Ukraine fighter jets. It's about time. This should have been done many months ago. Even without bombers, the fighter jets, assuming Biden provides an adequate number, will enable Ukraine to take the war to the Russians in their rear assembly and supply areas, and to attack Russian naval ships that are prowling off Ukraine's coast, something that Ukraine cannot now do very effectively. Another step that would help Ukraine win the war would be to give them long-range missiles so they could hit Russian naval ships and retaliate for all the vicious Russian missile attacks on civilian areas. But just look at the magnificent job that Ukraine has done fighting off the invasion with just the weapons that Biden and NATO have been willing to give them. It is a testament to the spirit of the Ukrainian people. I have a deep interest in Putin's criminal invasion because I have dear friends in Ukraine, one of whom is like a daughter to me and my wife. We had a Ukrainian exchange student for a school year in 2018, and we visited Ukraine to meet her family in 2019. Her father, who is in his forties, is voluntarily serving in the Ukrainian army. She and her mother, sister, and grandmother have had to spend time in bomb shelters. At times we have lost contact with them because they had no cell service and no Internet access. It infuriates me just to think about it.

But the standard tale offered by WC apologists for years is that the bullet that hit Connally was yawing. If the bullet was not yawing before it allegedly exited JFK's throat, what would have caused it to suddenly start yawing before it supposedly hit Connally in the back? Of course, no bullet traveled through JFK's neck. We now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat. This explains why there was no hole through the tie knot and no nick on either edge of tie knot. This explains why the shirt slits had no copper traces around them and no fabric missing from them. This explains why the slits exhibit signs of having been cut by a scalpel. This explains why the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound itself, indicating that a projectile entered the throat, not exited it. This explains why the slits look nothing like an exit defect made by a bullet. This explains why the FBI lab initially said nothing about a bullet exiting the slits but said the slits could have been made by a fragment. This explains why Dr. Carrico specified that the throat wound was above the collar. And on and on we could go. Also, the back wound was well below the neck, as we know from the hard physical evidence of the rear clothing holes. Moreover, before he realized it was a problem and expunged it from the autopsy report, Humes stated that the back wound had a sharply downward angle. But, Humes did not realize that Sibert and O'Neill had dutifully recorded his observation and included it in their report on the autopsy; nor did he realize that this observation was included in the FBI's summary report on the assassination. JFK starts to react to the throat shot in Z200. This is why he reaches for his throat. Then, while he's still grabbing at his throat, he is visibly knocked forward by the back shot starting in Z226. These things are obvious to anyone not committed to denying reality. Connally, of course, shows no signs of having been hit until Z238, when his right shoulder is suddenly knocked downward and his cheeks puff. In perfect agreement with the Zapruder film, Connally himself chose Z234 as the moment of impact, which explains why his right shoulder was slammed downward less than 1/4-second later (or just 218 milliseconds later).

This video is a bunch of far-left, pro-communist propaganda. Sachs is a hardcore radical leftist who thinks America is the Great Satan of the planet. He was part of the so-called "anti-war movement" during the Vietnam War. He calls the U.S. bombing of Cambodia "completely reckless and illegal." I should have him talk with some of my Cambodian friends, one of whom attends the same church with me. They could set him straight about who the bad guys were in Cambodia. I notice he says nothing about the brutal reign of terror that his North Vietnamese Communist buddies imposed on the South Vietnamese after Saigon fell. JFK would spin in his grave to be associated with such an anti-American radical as Sachs.

It's interesting that initially even Humes said the SBT was impossible given the medical evidence. And Nurse Bell was adamant that more fragments were recovered from Connally's wrist than could have come from CE 399. The Zapruder film, even in its extant condition, makes it clear that Connally's wrist was wounded many frames after Connally was shot through the chest.

Yes, quite a few WC defenders believed it was their patriotic duty to uphold the lone-gunman theory. They viewed any criticism of the WC as an attack on our form of government. They viewed any suggestion that JFK was killed by a domestic conspiracy as a far-left attempt to shield the Soviets from blame and to whitewash Oswald's Marxism and pro-communist activities. Many contemporary WC apologists share these views. Anyway, Lattimer's blunders on JFK's head wounds were as bad as his gaffes on the SBT.

I think Pat is once again misrepresenting Aguilar's views. When Aguilar was interviewed for the 2022 documentary JFK Revisited, he said the following about the Harper Fragment: Dr. Gary Aguilar: It was found in a position that the FBI said was to the left and rear of where Jack Kennedy was when he was assassinated. It was then taken in by this medical student into his professors and they looked at it and they said it looked like it was occipital bone, which is back here. The whole point of the documentary's segment on the Harper Fragment is that the fragment was occipital bone, and the segment includes Aguilar's above-quoted statement. And, again, this documentary was released just last year, 2022.

In this case, Niederhut happens to be right. Your thread whitewashed Putin's brutal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Even worse, your thread argued that Biden has not sought peace in Ukraine, and that JFK would have pursued a more "peaceful" policy in response to Putin's vicious assault on Ukraine.

Notice that no WC apologist has explained how a yawing bullet, even one passing through a magically shored-up neck, could have created such a small (3-5 mm), neat, and punched-in throat wound. The edges of the wound were punched inward, not outward. Most important, the wound was very small, no more than 5 mm in diameter. A yawing bullet could not have produced such a small wound.

As I've mentioned, I've never been able to get a plausible, sensible answer from WC apologists about how a tumbling bullet could have created the small (3-5 mm), neat, punched-in wound in JFK's throat seen by the Parkland doctors and nurses. Connally's back wound was the same length as JFK's rear head entry wound, yet no one suggests that JFK's head was hit by a tumbling bullet. Connally's wound was 1.5 x 0.8 cm. The wound was 1.5 cm long because the bullet struck at an angle, not because it was tumbling. The single-bullet theory collapses for so many reasons it's hard to count all of them.

Just a quick note about the debunked claim that JFK was not really grabbing at his throat but was exhibiting a Thorburn reaction and was in the Thorburn position. Rather than reinvent the wheel, here is a good refutation of this claim: Dr. Lattimer and the Great Thorburn Hoax Alternative Link Is it not amazing that you have people here arguing that the guy who actually experienced the shot and felt the powerful punch to his back "could not tell when he was hit" when he studied high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film? I mean, he made a full recovery and was fully lucid and sharp when he testified before the WC and when he spent hours studying the Zapruder film for Life magazine. To believe the SBT, you have to pretend not to see JFK's and Jackie's reactions that start in Z200, not to mention the other evidence of a shot at/just before Z190, and you have to pretend to see Connally "grimacing" in the very frames that Connally specified he was not grimacing. You must also ignore the fact that Nellie Connally corroborated her husband's WC testimony when she testified before the WC. Both were certain that JFK was hit before Connally was hit, and Nellie specified that she heard a disturbing sound, turned to look at JFK, saw him grabbing at his throat and exhibiting a blank look--all this before she heard the shot that hit her husband. And the Zapruder confirms that JFK was clearly hit well before Connally's right shoulder starts to drop dramatically and his cheeks start to puff at Z238.

I've read that chapter. It contains a number of errors and misrepresentations, just as your replies have. If Wecht feels that way, it is mighty strange that he wrote such a positive review of Mantik's new book just last year. As for Aguilar, humm, I think you are either misrepresenting Aguilar or have misunderstood him. Go look at the video he posted in 2021, wherein he argues for the right-rear head wound, questions the veracity of the autopsy photos, and argues for a right-frontal shot. When interviewed by Robbie Robertson less than a year ago, on video, Aguilar argued that the brains were switched, that the 1500-gram brain weight is absurd, that there was a right-rear exit wound, that there was a shot from the right front, etc., etc. Mantik's OD measurements are a bit more than just "interesting." They were proof-read by Dr. Arthur Haas, a former chief of medical physics at Kodak, and have been confirmed by Dr. Chesser, who did his own OD measurements on the skull x-rays. It is incredible that you do not accept this hard scientific evidence. There is a reason that you are the darling, favorite conspiracy theorist among WC apologists. They love to quote you. Look how often they cite you just in this forum. Over and over again, you accept their premises and dubious evidence and then offer a convoluted alternative interpretation that favors conspiracy. When I first joined this forum, I did not understand why so many of our fellow WC critics hold a negative view of your research. Now i do.

Just behold the embarrassing, ridiculous, and disingenuous reaching that WC apologists are doing in this thread. It is a sight to behold. It would be comical if the subject were not a serious one. Given that someone has cited Pat Speer's analysis of Nellie Connally's testimony, I think we should look at some of Speer has said on the matter: Bugliosi then has Nellie Connally, "startled by the loud frightening noise that emanates from somewhere to her right," turn to look in this direction. He stops it right there, and in the process, leaves something out. A big something. Her Warren Commission testimony, which Bugliosi cites, reads: "I heard a noise…I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck" (4H146-149). In subsequent interviews, Mrs. Connally would repeatedly assert that Kennedy was hit by this first shot. Why, if Bugliosi trusts her testimony that her husband yelled out "Oh, no, no, no!" just before he was shot--when she wasn't even focusing on her husband at the time--does he refuse to believe she saw Kennedy reacting to a shot when she claimed to be looking right at him? On page 481, Bugliosi finally gets around to offering his reasons for rejecting Nellie Connally's consistent claim that she saw Kennedy, sitting but 3 feet away from her, react to the first shot. In one of the most bizarre and deceptive arguments in a book filled with bizarre and deceptive arguments, he asserts that we know Nellie Connally was confused because "In her Warren Commission testimony, she testified that immediately after hearing the first shot, she 'looked back and saw the president as he had both hands at his neck.' We know from the Zapruder film, of course, that Kennedy showed no visible reaction to the first shot around Z160, so we know Mrs. Connally was wrong." Well, I'll be. Talk of your circular reasoning. Bugliosi claims we know a shot was fired at frame 160 of the Zapruder film, in large part because Governor Connally testified to turning to his right just after the first shot. As President Kennedy was clearly not hit at this time, however, Bugliosi proposes that this first shot must have missed. This makes Governor Connally and his fervent belief that the first shot hit Kennedy an obstacle. No problem, says Bugliosi, Governor Connally was a gunshot wound victim, and his recollections of the moments just before and after he was shot are an understandable blur. Never mind that this undercuts the value of Connally's testimony, the very testimony upon which Bugliosi's first shot miss theory has been built. Besides, says Bugliosi, "Governor Connally's conclusion that the president was hit by the first shot is based solely, it seems, on the recollection of his wife, Nellie." And why can't we trust Nellie's recollection? Because her recollection conflicts with the first shot's being fired at frame 160, a precise time divined by Bugliosi from her "confused" husband's testimony! Apparently, we are to disregard the statements and testimony of any witness whose statements and testimony conflict with Bugliosi's proposed first shot miss, an event so far unsupported by the full statements and testimony of every witness he's provided. But if that wasn't bad enough, on page 481 Bugliosi offers us a second reason to distrust Nellie Connally's assertion that the first shot struck the President. His second reason is that "She also said that after the first shot, she recalls her husband exclaiming, 'Oh, no, no, no.' But he testified, 'When I was hit' (which he said was by the second shot) is when 'I said 'Oh, no, no, no.'" Umm, wow. Did Bugliosi really forget that he'd previously argued that she was right when she said her husband yelled out "Oh, no, no, no!" after the first shot, and that he'd used her statement, at that time, to discredit her husband? He can't have it both ways. He can't say her husband is wrong because she disagrees with him and then turn around and say we can't trust her because he disagrees with her. (LINK)

Really?! Is it not very odd that Connally himself, the man who actually experienced the wounding, said just the opposite? After carefully studying high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film for Life magazine, he said he was certain he was not hit before he began to turn leftward, which he starts to do no later than Z224. Connally told Life, "You can see my leftward movement clearly," Connally told Life as he studied these frames. "I had turned to the right when the limousine was behind the sign. Now I'm turning back again. I know that I made that turn to the left before I was hit. You can see the grimace in the President's face. You cannot see it in mine. There is no question about It. I haven't been hit yet." (LINK) Connally chose Z234 as the moment of impact, which dovetails perfectly with the dramatic collapse of his shoulder and the puffing of his cheeks starting in Z238. More "mistakes"! Oh, this is rich. So Connally, the guy who actually felt the bullet hit him, could not tell when he was hit! Not even after studying high-quality enlargements of the Zapruder film! Well, no one can stop you from making such a silly claim. Again, you will see whatever you need to see, even if it is clearly not there. The Z224 lapel flip had nothing to do with a shot. It was caused by the wind that was gusting in the plaza. Moreover, the lapel was nowhere near the point where the bullet exited anyway. The only thing that Nellie Connally was ever unclear about was exactly when she heard her husband yell "no, no, no." In her WC and HSCA testimonies, she was consistent on every other key aspect, especially about the fact that the governor was not hit until after she had turned to look at JFK, saw him grabbing his throat, and saw a blank look on his face. The Zapruder film undeniably confirms her account that her husband was not hit until after JFK had begun to react to his first wound, if a person is willing to admit what is plainly visible. Again, if Connally was hit at Z224-225, why is his shoulder not slammed downward until Z238? How can he still be holding his hat if his radius bone has been shattered? Yes, of course you guys cannot accept the HSCA PEP's finding that JFK starts to react to his first wound in Z200, because that blows the SBT to pieces. Yet, the PEP was clearly and obviously correct, as anyone who studies the Zapruder film can see--again, as long as they are willing to admit what is plainly visible. BTW, the Z186-190 shot matches the timing of Willis 5 perfectly, as the PEP correctly noted. The PEP realized that JFK began to bring his hands toward his throat before he went behind the freeway sign. In Z205-206, JFK's right hand is already near and in front of his throat). This is why Jackie suddenly turned her head to the right to look at JFK starting at around Z202, and why she is intently looking at him when she reemerges from behind the freeway sign at Z221. When JFK reemerges from behind the freeway sign in Z224, his left hand is at the level of his throat. Clearly, he had begun grabbing his throat with both hands before this point. Yet, you guys say that he was not wounded until Z224! No human could whip his left hand up to his throat in fewer than 54 milliseconds (one Z frame equals 54.6 milliseconds).

I don't want to get into it, but the list you cite is largely meaningless. Some of them like Mantik and think his research is interesting, but have separated themselves from many if not most of his conclusions. . . . Dr. Wecht and Dr. Chesser endorsed Dr. Mantik's new book late last year, so clearly they have not "separated themselves from many if not most of his conclusions." I know that Doug Horne certainly has not done so. As of mid-2021, Dr. Aguilar was still arguing that the autopsy photos do not accurately picture JFK's large head wound and was questioning their authenticity. P.S. You still haven't addressed any of these points... 1. Does the white patch cover Mantik's location for the Harper fragment? If not, why did most everyone citing Mantik's research claim it did prior to my pointing out that it did not? Mantik also adjusted his placement of the Harper Fragment after he saw the x-ray of the fragment that John Hunt discovered at the National Archives. I notice you did not address any of the points he made about what that x-ray shows. The white patch covers a small part of the right-rear wound described by 40-plus witnesses, but, granted, it does not cover the entire wound. This does not change the fact that OD measurements prove that the white patch is a manmade artifact. 2. Does Mantik's orientation for the mystery photo depict a large hole on the LEFT side of the skull? And, if so, why is it okay for him to pretend his orientation is in keeping with eyewitnesses who saw no such hole? You are once again misrepresenting Mantik's views. I just reviewed his illustrations in his section on F8 (the mystery photo), i.e., Figures 7A and 7B. They do not depict a "large hole on the left side of the skull." None of his other diagrams of the skull depict such a wound either. 3. Does Mantik's orientation for the large triangular fragment necessitate a large hole on the front of the head, separate from a hole on the back of the head? And, if so, why didn't the Parkland witnesses notice such a thing? 4. Seeing as the bulk of the witnesses saw one and only one large hole on the head, doesn't it make a lot more sense to assume the large triangular fragment derived from this hole, as opposed to pretending there was a large hole that nobody saw? These questions suggest that you have not actually bothered to read his book. You do not seem to understand his analysis of the large head wound. He deals with the triangular fragment in considerable detail and shows that its placement supports his analysis of the large head wound. If you have read his book, I am baffled how you could ask these questions. Oh my. I have a ton of material on the Harper fragment on my website. Much of what Mantik has written has been a response to what I've written, in an attempt to prop up his ridiculous conclusion the Harper fragment is occipital bone. You are once again putting yourself in a small minority among conspiracy theorists. Dr. Chesser, Dr. Wecht, Dr. Henkelmann, Doug Horne, Wallace Milan, and Greg Burnham contend that Mantik has established that the Harper Fragment is occipital bone. Dr. Aguilar still believes it is occipital bone. The three pathologists who actually handled the fragment said it was occipital bone--and when Dr. Cairns was interviewed by the HSCA, he reaffirmed the occipital placement, as did Dr. Noteboom when he was interviewed in 1992. Dr. Jeff Sundberg believes that Mantik is correct about the Harper Fragment and thinks highly of Mantik's research in general; Sundberg wrote a glowing review of Mantik's book John F. Kennedy's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis — and a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment.

This is ridiculous and disingenuous. You are saying that Connally could not tell when he was hit, even though he was the one who experienced the hit. You are also saying that Mrs. Connally was semi-delusional, since she clearly and emphatically recalled that her husband was not hit until after she had turned to look at JFK, saw him grabbing his throat, and saw a blank look on his face. Yes, Connally snapped his head to the left at around Z160. But, as I know you know, Connally was talking about the sequence that starts as he and JFK emerge from behind the freeway sign. As Connally reemerges from behind the sign, he has started to turn his head to the left, just as he described. And, just as he also described, he is clearly not hit until several frames after he has started this leftward turn. Again, Connally himself, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, said he was hit at Z234, which dovetails perfectly with his right shoulder collapse and cheek puffing starting at Z238. Since the HSCA PEP established that JFK began to react to his first bullet wound at Z200, which is what the Zapruder film clearly shows, pray tell, what slammed Connally's right shoulder downward and made his cheeks puff in Z238-243?

This stuff is decades behind the information curve. The stretcher bullet now in evidence does not resemble the description of the bullet that was originally found. And, NAA testing actually proved that the fragments could have come from any number of FMJ bullets, not just WCC bullets.

Some of this is nit-picking. Some of this is distortion. Some of this is overly simplistic. Some of this is just plain wrong. Again, when you decide to address Mantik's extensive research on the Harper Fragment, let me know. I'm not going to bother answering drive-by sniping. Now, how about you allow us to get back to the subject of the thread, namely, that the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays, and that the autopsy report says nothing about the very obvious high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays? Can we do that?

Very informative reply, Sandy. Nice work. Speaking of the hat, how in the world could Connally have kept holding it if a bullet had just shattered the radius bone in his wrist? Clearly, the wrist wound was caused by a separate bullet that came after the chest bullet. And what in the devil to WC apologists say slammed Connally's right shoulder downward from Z238-243? And why do his cheeks suddenly puff at Z238? In one interview, Connally said the shot felt like someone punched him in the back. It is curious that WC defenders dismiss the fact that Connally himself, the guy who experienced the shot, said he was certain he was not hit before he began to turn his head leftward, which starts no later than Z224. Connally told Life magazine, "You can see my leftward movement clearly," Connally told Life as he studied these frames. "I had turned to the right when the limousine was behind the sign. Now I'm turning back again. I know that I made that turn to the left before I was hit. You can see the grimace in the President's face. You cannot see it in mine. There is no question about It. I haven't been hit yet." (LINK) But JFK was clearly hit well before Z225. The HSCA PEP said JFK was first hit by a shot fired at Z190. Connally selected Z234 as the moment he was struck by a bullet, and less than 1/4-second later (or less than 250 milliseconds later), his right shoulder is slammed downward and his cheeks puff.

Yes, he mentions and explains that correction in his book. I quoted part of comments on the correction. Again, when you produce a response to the evidence he presents on the Harper Fragment, please let me know. I notice you did not answer any of the points he made on the subject. It is worth repeating that you are in a tiny minority of conspiracy theorists who criticize Dr. Mantik's research, whereas it is endorsed by Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Cyril Wecht, Doug Horne, Dr. Michael Chesser, Wallace Milam, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, and Greg Burnham, among many others.

Another problem with the Clark Panel-HSCA high entry wound is that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex at the point of the alleged wound, an obvious impossibility. There would be obvious damage to the cerebral cortex if a bullet had entered at the high entry site. Dr. Joseph Riley: There is no entrance wound where the HSCA locates it. The autopsy photographs show intact cerebral cortex at the point that the HSCA claims is an entrance wound. . . . In the "top of head" autopsy photographs, intact cerebral cortex is visible. (This has been confirmed in personal communications from Dr. Robert Artwohl and Dr. David Mantik, both of whom visited the archives). What is unappreciated is that this cortex (superior parietal lobule) corresponds to the HSCA's entrance site. (LINK) We have an obvious fragment trail near the top of the skull, and that trail is far too high to have come from a bullet that went from the EOP to the right eye. Moreover, there is no connection between the cavitation wound, which is deep and parallel to the cortical surface, and the high fragment trail. Only two bullets could have caused these injuries.

Kellerman and Greer were the two Secret Service agents at the autopsy. It was Kellerman who told Dr. Earl Rose at Parkland that there was "no time" for him to perform the legally required autopsy because Jackie would not leave without the body, as if Jackie could not wait for an autopsy to be done. I could see Kellerman or Greer taking Finck's notes. Another suspect, IMO, is Dr. Burkley. But, in my mind, Humes is the most likely suspect.

Remember, too, that Curry said, "No one has ever been able to put him [Oswald] in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand."

You are again misrepresenting Mantik's views. Here are parts of his analysis of the Harper Fragment in his new book JFK Assassination Paradoxes: With John Hunt’s recent, remarkable discovery of the X-ray image of the Harper fragment (in the National Archives) we now know that there was metal at one small site on this bone. The photographs show that this metal was not on the inside, but rather on the outside. If only one headshot is accepted, then that metal debris on the Harper fragment (remember—it’s on the outside) must necessarily derive from the entry that the pathologists identified. Once that is granted, then the Harper fragment itself becomes the missing bone at the rear (or, more likely, just a part of the entire defect), just where the HSCA denied that there was a hole.165 You can see all of this in my reconstructed skull.166. . . . My reconstruction of the Harper fragment, with the lead deposit precisely at the pathologists’ site, may be considered objective proof of their honesty and accuracy on this issue.259 If additional metal fragments were deposited with this shot, they were removed before the official autopsy began.260. . . . RR [Randy Robertson] offers no explanation for the lead-like smear on the Harper fragment (Figure 13A). The X-ray of the Harper fragment (which RR showed at the 1995 COPA conference) strongly suggests metallic debris at the precise site of the smear (Figure 13B). On November 21, 1992, on a Palm Springs radio talk show (KPSI), my colleagues and I interviewed one of the Dallas pathologists, Dr. Gerard Noteboom, who confirmed the occipital origin of the Harper fragment. He had actually held the bone, and he also recalled a trace of metal (like a lead smear from a bullet) on one edge of the Harper fragment. His fellow pathologist, Dr. A. B. Cairns, also interpreted this smear as due to a bullet entry. (Since the smear unambiguously lies on the outside, it cannot represent a bullet exit site. 388) On the other hand, if RR were to attribute this smear to a bullet, he could not ascribe it to an entry—because he has already identified that entry on the triangular fragment.389 I have suggested that the smear was caused by the EOP entry, but RR cannot do that—because he places the Harper fragment into the parietal area. So, how exactly did that smear get there—and what does it mean? RR remains silent. . . . I offer one important clarification in this critique. After my Dallas lecture I recognized, with some regret, that I had left the audience with a confused picture of the (apparent) site of lead debris on the Harper fragment. Speer gets credit for also noticing this, and the audience has my apologies. The confusion arose from new evidence on the Harper X-ray, discovered by John Hunt. The X-ray showed the metal debris to lie at the opposite pole of the Harper fragment from where I had originally placed it (a placement that had been based solely on the photographs). For my Dallas lecture I showed only a close-up image (slide 19) of the Harper X-ray (courtesy of John Hunt), but I should have shown the entire X-ray. I correct that oversight here. However, if this new site for metal is accepted, Speer’s placement of the Harper fragment (like Riley’s and Angel’s) suffers grievous trauma. . . . Of course, I do not accept Angel’s interpretation. Instead, the Harper fragment most likely came from the high occipital area, as I have argued elsewhere. . . . According to Angel, the sagittal (i.e., midline, top of the head) suture is visible on the Harper fragment. That suture line helped Angel to locate the Harper fragment near the skull vertex, as shown in my Figure 11. However, based on the Harper X-ray, the lead site then lies just to the left of the skull vertex—and the lead is on the outside of the skull! That is truly bizarre. No one has ever proposed that a bullet entered at this site, yet that is precisely where Angel’s (and Riley’s) placement of the Harper fragment has led them. There is even more evidence (in a forthcoming essay) that my placement of the Harper fragment (mostly from the upper occipital area) is correct. However, the bottom line here is this: if one accepts the Harper X-ray evidence, then the Angel location—with lead lying to the left of midline on the outside—cannot possibly be correct. Angel, however, can be forgiven. He was told, as a fait accompli, that the occipital bone was intact, so he had little choice about where to put this bone. Also, even more importantly, he knew nothing about the Harper X-ray, but now everything has changed. . . . In this monograph I examine the photographs and X-rays of the Harper fragment (hereafter “HF”) and I list (in Section 6) fifteen independent and self-consistent signs for its origin from JFK’s upper occiput. (pp. 56, 91-92, 150, 194, 210, 211, xi in appendix)