Dr. David Mantik's new book

[James DiEugenio]

More from Mantik's essay:

"Because its precise site of origin (within the skull) can point strongly; either toward or away from conspiracy; the Harper fragment (HF) has triggered many hot debates.[6] To date, no consensus has been reached on its site of origin. The bone itself disappeared (after Burkley signed for it), so all subsequent discussion has focused on the photographs and, more recently, on the HF X-ray.[7] My goals here are to review the major clues to this puzzle (I list fifteen of these in Section 6; all consistent with one another) and to identify the site of origin of HF within the skull.

The original identification (of HF as occipital) was made by three Dallas pathologists; Jack C. Harper, Gerard Noteboom, and A. B. Cairns (chief of pathology for Methodist Hospital). Their photographs of the bone are shown in Figure 1. In reaching their occipital conclusion, of course, they had no access to JFK's skull; nor to skull X-rays, nor likely to any eyewitnesses, nor to any Dealey Plaza photographs. And they certainly did not see any autopsy photographs (either original or extant), so they did not know where JFK's skull defects or injuries were. On the other hand, Dr. Harper's nephew had told him about the discovery site in Dealey Plaza; despite this knowledge, the pathologists still clearly affirmed an occipital origin."

Edited July 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

From Part 3:

Section 6. Fifteen Indicators of an Occipital Origin for HF [90]

"At least fifteen indicators argue for a large occipital defect: (1) witnesses to a large posterior defect (i.e., a hole in the occiput), (2) the three Dallas pathologists described HF as occipital, (3) Boswell’s sketches at the autopsy and for the ARRB, (4) the original catalog description of F8 as a posterior view, (5) Humes’s selected entry site while before the ARRB, (6) intrinsic features of HF, (7) the ill-matched appositional bone borders for metallic exit debris on two different bones, (8) small, visible dark areas on the AP X-ray (confirmed by OD data), (9) the missing medial lambdoid sutures on the AP X-ray, (10) an abrupt change in OD at the back of the skull on the lateral X-ray (consistent with the HF defect), (11) the dubious fit of HF into the parietal defect, (12) Dr. Cairns’s suspicion of an entry near the metallic smear and also his description of vascular grooves near the “base of the skull,” (13) the location of the metallic smear on the outside of HF, (14) the presence of fat pads (from the Y-incision) in the upper left corner of F8, and (15) the visibility of cerebellum via the posterior skull defect."

[Micah Mileto]

On 7/29/2015 at 8:25 AM, David Lifton said:

(a) the case for the back wound being false (as stated in Best Evidence) is a very strong one; and . .

I might have something to add onto that.

 

Finck's report to General Blumberg contains the out-of-place phrase "black fouling": "...In my opinion, the oval wound in the right posterior superior aspect of the chest of Kennedy was an ENTRY. The edges were fairly regular and there was black fouling of the edges". According to scientific literature on gunshot wounds, "fouling" refers to the residue of burned gunpowder and soot spread from the discharge of a firearm at very CLOSE RANGE (JCLC, 1948; AJCP, 1953; CSLR, 1964; AJCP, 1969). Officially, Finck's reference to "black fouling of the edges" can only be interpreted as a mistake.

[Guest]

 

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

 

Thanks, Bart. Any date for that Mantik interview?

[Guest]

nope

[Micah Mileto]

[delete]

Edited January 23, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[Pat Speer]

I don't think there's any mystery as to what happened, Micah. By mid-December the government as a whole and the SS in particular had become aware that there was a divide between the Parkland witnesses and Bethesda autopsy report. No, not the divide over the head wound that would later become the source of much debate. But a divide over the nature of the throat wound. Moore was sent to straighten this out.

While he, in effect, pressured the Parkland witnesses to play along and agree the throat wound could have been an exit wound, Moore and his superiors probably saw this as a necessary task. I mean, there's no evidence they knew where the shots came from...for a fact...and someone had to put a stop to the speculation shots came from in front of Kennedy. So he did his duty. At the time, moreover, it appears the Parkland witnesses were more delighted to have been invited behind the curtain and shown they autopsy report than they were troubled by Moore's actions. 

In retrospect, of course, this was quite problematic. What if the Parkland witnesses were correct and the autopsy report was wrong??? Was it proper for Moore to pressure, even unintentionally, the Parkland witnesses into going along with something they suspected wasn't true? I believe Moore was haunted by this...which led him to confide in Gochenaur. 

 

 

 

[David Lifton]

On 7/29/2015 at 12:37 PM, James DiEugenio said:

If I understand DSL, then he is saying he thinks that the cover up was designed along with the conspiracy?

If so, then I agree with him.

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned)  cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy.  (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up).  As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up."  An even better way to describe the situation is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception."  That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas.  (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

[David Lifton]

On 7/29/2015 at 12:37 PM, James DiEugenio said:

If I understand DSL, then he is saying he thinks that the cover up was designed along with the conspiracy?

If so, then I agree with him.

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned)  cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy.  (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up).  As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up."  An even better way to describe the situation is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception."  That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas.  (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

[David Lifton]

On 7/29/2015 at 12:37 PM, James DiEugenio said:

If I understand DSL, then he is saying he thinks that the cover up was designed along with the conspiracy?

If so, then I agree with him.

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned)  cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy.  (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up).  As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up."  An even better way to describe the situation is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception."  That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas.  (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

[David Lifton]

On 7/29/2015 at 12:37 PM, James DiEugenio said:

If I understand DSL, then he is saying he thinks that the cover up was designed along with the conspiracy?

If so, then I agree with him.

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned)  cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy.  (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up).  As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up."  An even better way to describe the situation is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception."  That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas.  (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

[David Lifton]

On 7/29/2015 at 12:37 PM, James DiEugenio said:

If I understand DSL, then he is saying he thinks that the cover up was designed along with the conspiracy?

If so, then I agree with him.

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned)  cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy.  (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up).  As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up."  An even better way to describe the situation is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception."  That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas.  (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

[David Lifton]

On 7/29/2015 at 12:37 PM, James DiEugenio said:

If I understand DSL, then he is saying he thinks that the cover up was designed along with the conspiracy?

If so, then I agree with him.

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned)  cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy.  (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up).  As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up."  An even better way to describe it is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception."  That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas.  (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

[David Lifton]

On 7/29/2015 at 12:37 PM, James DiEugenio said:

If I understand DSL, then he is saying he thinks that the cover up was designed along with the conspiracy?

If so, then I agree with him.

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned)  cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy.  (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up).  As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up."  An even better way to describe it is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception."  That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas.  (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)