The Saga of the Largest Metallic Fragment

[Glenn Nall]

Can I ask a question:

How much bigger would the 6.5 mm fragment be than any other fragment recovered?

it has always looked to me that any of the fragments were minuscule compared to a full-width bullet like the one in the x-ray, or 399... how come?

[James DiEugenio]

While we are waiting, her is Dave's reply to a past Speer critique, this time about the Harper fragment:

SPEER’S COMMENTS.

Thanks, Jim. It appears that Mantik is sticking to his guns. Cairns said the Harper fragment appeared to be low occipital. Mantik places it several inches higher, in the middle of the back of the skull. Mantik's location for the bone is thus at odds with both Cairns, and the Parkland witnesses. Now, he may be right, but citing Cairns and the Parkland witnesses as evidence for his conclusions, or even suggesting they are supportive, is incredibly misleading, IMO.

As stated, very few people supporting Mantik's conclusions even know what they are. Jim Douglass and Jim Fetzer, for example, both made much of Mantik's white patch on the x-rays, and claimed it suggested there'd been a gaping hole on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment had exploded, that was then covered by a white patch on the x-rays. As acknowledged by Mantik in our joint discussion of the fragment at Duquesne, however, he actually believes the fragment derived from a location on the very back of the head, inches away from the white patch on the side of the head.

-----------------------------

Jim,

My response here includes quotes (in red) from my Harper essay.

1. Speer cites Cairns as describing the Harper Fragment (HF) as deriving from the “low occipital” area. I addressed this issue in the essay, as follows.

In 1977 (see Appendix A) Andy Purdy interviewed Dr. A. B. Cairns, who recalled that the “…fragment came from an area approximately 2 ½ to 3 inches above the spine area. (See Figures 2A and 2B.) He said it had the markings of a “…skull fragment from the lower occipital area, specifically: suture and inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull.” He also recalled what he had said before, namely that HF derived from an area close to an entry site. My reconstruction is consistent with Cairns.

In a footnote I had added:

Of course, we don’t really know if Cairns had actually said “lower occipital.” This is, after all, a quote prepared by the FBI. Cairns may well have said “lower skull, occipital,” which the FBI then mangled.

2. As to upper vs. lower occiput,

Billy Harper has recently appeared online:

. Particularly note his indication of the HF discovery site (he seems to point east of the site identified on his map, although the camera does not track this), but also note his verbal description of HF as from the upper rear of the skull.

Furthermore, anyone can refer to the numerous depictions of witnesses (e.g., Groden’s photos) or their actual diagrams (e.g., for the HSCA) to decide for themselves whether they meant upper or lower occiput. They don’t need Speer’s interpretation (or mine either, for that matter) to reach a conclusion.

3. What also must not be overlooked is the rest of Cairns’s comment:

He said it had the markings of a “…skull fragment from the lower occipital area, specifically: suture and inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull.

From an expert who actually held this bone in his hands (and apparently even secretly kept photographs of it—see footnote 25), this is very powerful stuff. A bone fragment from the parietal area (as espoused by Speer, Robertson, Riley, et al.) would not meet this requirement.

4. Regarding the White Patch vs the hole for the missing HF, that is discussed in some detail in my HF essay:

Another clue (photographic in this case) that missing occipital bone might be difficult to detect on a lateral X-ray can be appreciated in Figure 2. In particular, notice how very far posterior HF lies on this lateral photographic image. This impression is confirmed by X-ray images provided by Dr. Gary Aguilar (Figures 15A and 15B). Aguilar placed a metal object (red arrow) on the back of the skull; notice how far posterior this lies on a lateral X-ray. In particular, the metal object overlies the far posterior occipital bone, including the inner table of the skull.

Coincidentally, I had performed a similar experiment (with similar results) some years before Aguilar, by using my own skull (i.e., the one I purchased), but with lead wires outlining the HF site. (I had also used lead wires to outline bone islands C and D on my model skull—see Figures 7A, B, C.) I did this under fluoroscopic control, so that I could correctly position C and D on the skull surface. On my lateral X-ray, the lateral edge of HF appeared just inside the posterior skull surface (i.e., just anterior to the inner table). We can conclude therefore that absent HF would be virtually impossible to detect with the naked eye on a lateral X-ray film.

By contrast, Paul Seaton had speculated (incorrectly) about my placement of HF. Seaton had extended this supposed area for HF far forward (on the lateral X-ray) into the White Patch. Unhappily for him, his entire argument was quite wrong. In fact, of course, no significant missing bone is apparent on JFK’s lateral X-ray in the area that I labeled as the White Patch—certainly not large enough to be due to HF.

Figures 15A and 15B. These X-ray images are from

a simple experiment performed by Gary Aguilar

(December 1997), which I had actually anticipated

(in February-March 1993). In my case, I had used

lead wires to outline HF on the occiput. The red arrow

identifies the metal object that Aguilar placed at the

back of the skull.

Another point should be obvious from Aguilar’s experiment (and from mine, too): actually, the White Patch has nothing to do with missing occipital bone (Figure 14). That Patch lies far anterior to the missing occipital bone (where HF originated). This point has often been misunderstood by researchers, who think that the White Patch was superimposed in order to cover up the missing HF, but of course they are wrong. In fact, the darker areas on the JFK skull X-rays often represent missing brain rather than missing bone—a point I have often made, but which still tends to be overlooked. On the lateral X-ray, the HF defect is not apparent to the naked eye (nor should it be, because it is too far posterior)—so there was nothing for forgers to cover-up at that site. So why was the White Patch added? We can only guess, but most likely the forgers wanted to draw attention away from the rear of the skull (where some brain was actually missing), so that viewers would instead focus on the anterior skull, where lots of brain is missing (on both lateral X-rays). The resulting visual impression would, of course, suggest that a bullet exited from the front, but not from the rear—thus further implicating Oswald. Had I altered the skull X-rays, I would have omitted the White Patch—it just seems like overkill. It would have been enough just to add the 6.5 mm object. But when someone gets a clever idea, such as altering X-ray films in the darkroom, it is easy to get carried away with one’s own ingenuity.

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks for the back up, Jim.

Perhaps Pat would do better identifying the anatomical structure of a song that's recorded on the "B" side of a 45 by his favorite singer.

All joking aside, David is a Founding Member of my Research Forum. I have known and worked with David for over a decade now (since early 2001). In that time, there have been several traits he has consistently displayed:

1) a vast knowledge of human anatomy associated with his credentials as a Medical Doctor, Board Certified in Radiology

2) a vast knowledge of the behavior of "objects, light, anything with mass or other physical properties" associated with his credentials as a scientist with a PhD in Physics

3) a reluctance to toot his own horn

4) an unparalleled attention to detail

5) a refusal to enter into pissing matches with skunks

6) an extremely generous nature, which makes the sharing of information he's discovered easily accessed by all

7) a willingness to readily admit to an error * if an error was actually committed--and the graciousness to publicly thank the person who discovered and pointed out that error (the opposite of Bugliosi)

I have been most impressed with his unusual patience when his work comes under attack by those who are not educated in the medical field, (but would have us believe that they have a "self-taught degree" in medicine that's "just as good" as the real thing). His willingness to explain, in detail and in lay person's terms, the meaning of his findings to those unfamiliar with radiology (even those who talk a good game, but know next to nothing about the subject).

* Of course, where no error has been proved by the critic then no admission is forthcoming.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Glenn Nall]

ok, so James now refuses to acknowledge my queries, even though he once respected my input, mainly because I disagreed with him.

and they say that this JFK thing of ours isn't personal...

Greg: what the hell is a 45? and what the hell is a B side?

just kidding. i saw one once in a museum.

[Greg Burnham]

ok, so James now refuses to acknowledge my queries, even though he once respected my input, mainly because I disagreed with him.

and they say that this JFK thing of ours isn't personal...

Greg: what the hell is a 45? and what the hell is a B side?

just kidding. i saw one once in a museum.

Pat and I share a similar past career (in the music industry) although our paths never crossed. Hence the reference to "a 45" (record) is to the speed (in rpm's) at which those little vinyl records were played.

[Pat Speer]

While we are waiting, her is Dave's reply to a past Speer critique, this time about the Harper fragment:

SPEER’S COMMENTS.

Thanks, Jim. It appears that Mantik is sticking to his guns. Cairns said the Harper fragment appeared to be low occipital. Mantik places it several inches higher, in the middle of the back of the skull. Mantik's location for the bone is thus at odds with both Cairns, and the Parkland witnesses. Now, he may be right, but citing Cairns and the Parkland witnesses as evidence for his conclusions, or even suggesting they are supportive, is incredibly misleading, IMO.

As stated, very few people supporting Mantik's conclusions even know what they are. Jim Douglass and Jim Fetzer, for example, both made much of Mantik's white patch on the x-rays, and claimed it suggested there'd been a gaping hole on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment had exploded, that was then covered by a white patch on the x-rays. As acknowledged by Mantik in our joint discussion of the fragment at Duquesne, however, he actually believes the fragment derived from a location on the very back of the head, inches away from the white patch on the side of the head.

-----------------------------

Jim,

My response here includes quotes (in red) from my Harper essay.

1. Speer cites Cairns as describing the Harper Fragment (HF) as deriving from the “low occipital” area. I addressed this issue in the essay, as follows.

In 1977 (see Appendix A) Andy Purdy interviewed Dr. A. B. Cairns, who recalled that the “…fragment came from an area approximately 2 ½ to 3 inches above the spine area. (See Figures 2A and 2B.) He said it had the markings of a “…skull fragment from the lower occipital area, specifically: suture and inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull.” He also recalled what he had said before, namely that HF derived from an area close to an entry site. My reconstruction is consistent with Cairns.

In a footnote I had added:

Of course, we don’t really know if Cairns had actually said “lower occipital.” This is, after all, a quote prepared by the FBI. Cairns may well have said “lower skull, occipital,” which the FBI then mangled.

Dr. Mantik is incorrect in asserting that we shouldn't trust Cairns' claim he believed the Harper fragment was low occipital, as this comes from a document prepared by the FBI. It, in fact, comes from an HSCA memo prepared by Andy Purdy.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=600#relPageId=2&tab=page

Edited August 10, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Glenn Nall]

ok, so James now refuses to acknowledge my queries, even though he once respected my input, mainly because I disagreed with him.

and they say that this JFK thing of ours isn't personal...

Greg: what the hell is a 45? and what the hell is a B side?

just kidding. i saw one once in a museum.

yeah, i know what 45's are - i really was just kidding. thanks

[Greg Burnham]

Posted for David Mantik, MD, PhD:

The reference to my conversation with Ebersole is correctly cited in the abstract--but not in the full PDF. I have asked the publisher to correct this.

Audio Recording of Conversation: A Telephone Conversation with Dr. John Ebersole

Of course, I have already addressed Pat's arguments at:

Mantik Rebuts Speer's Arguments

[Pat Speer]

Let it be noted that within the rebuttal Greg has linked to Mantik spends a lot of time arguing that the Harper fragment x-ray supports his orientation for the Harper fragment, as it would suggest a bullet impact on the top of the head in Dr. Angel's orientation. Let it be noted that I had insisted he was mistaken on this point, and that I had pointed this out on my website, but that he had doubled down and insisted he was correct.

Now let it be noted that in 2013 I traveled to Pittsburgh in part to demonstrate Mantik's error, only to have him save me the trouble by admitting his error publicly before I was to speak. While I respect that he finally and publicly admitted his error, it is still perplexing to me that it took him so long to realize his error, which to me seems obvious.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Pat Speer

[David G. Healy]

Thanks for the back up, Jim.

Perhaps Pat would do better identifying the anatomical structure of a song that's recorded on the "B" side of a 45 by his favorite singer.

All joking aside, David is a Founding Member of my Research Forum. I have known and worked with David for over a decade now (since early 2001). In that time, there have been several traits he has consistently displayed:

1) a vast knowledge of human anatomy associated with his credentials as a Medical Doctor, Board Certified in Radiology

2) a vast knowledge of the behavior of "objects, light, anything with mass or other physical properties" associated with his credentials as a scientist with a PhD in Physics

3) a reluctance to toot his own horn

4) an unparalleled attention to detail

5) a refusal to enter into pissing matches with skunks

6) an extremely generous nature, which makes the sharing of information he's discovered easily accessed by all

7) a willingness to readily admit to an error * if an error was actually committed--and the graciousness to publicly thank the person who discovered and pointed out that error (the opposite of Bugliosi)

I have been most impressed with his unusual patience when his work comes under attack by those who are not educated in the medical field, (but would have us believe that they have a "self-taught degree" in medicine that's "just as good" as the real thing). His willingness to explain, in detail and in lay person's terms, the meaning of his findings to those unfamiliar with radiology (even those who talk a good game, but know next to nothing about the subject).

* Of course, where no error has been proved by the critic then no admission is forthcoming.

Thank you for posting this, Monk. I heartily agree... Just saw this post this morning.

quote on

I have been most impressed with his unusual patience when his work comes under attack by those who are not educated in the medical field, (but would have us believe that they have a "self-taught degree" in medicine that's "just as good" as the real thing). His willingness to explain, in detail and in lay person's terms, the meaning of his findings to those unfamiliar with radiology (even those who talk a good game, but know next to nothing about the subject).

quote off

It doesn't appear to be Dr. Mantik's nature to tell some to *buzz off*! And that's too bad!

Edited December 22, 2015 by David G. Healy

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks for the back up, Jim.

Perhaps Pat would do better identifying the anatomical structure of a song that's recorded on the "B" side of a 45 by his favorite singer.

All joking aside, David is a Founding Member of my Research Forum. I have known and worked with David for over a decade now (since early 2001). In that time, there have been several traits he has consistently displayed:

1) a vast knowledge of human anatomy associated with his credentials as a Medical Doctor, Board Certified in Radiology

2) a vast knowledge of the behavior of "objects, light, anything with mass or other physical properties" associated with his credentials as a scientist with a PhD in Physics

3) a reluctance to toot his own horn

4) an unparalleled attention to detail

5) a refusal to enter into pissing matches with skunks

6) an extremely generous nature, which makes the sharing of information he's discovered easily accessed by all

7) a willingness to readily admit to an error * if an error was actually committed--and the graciousness to publicly thank the person who discovered and pointed out that error (the opposite of Bugliosi)

I have been most impressed with his unusual patience when his work comes under attack by those who are not educated in the medical field, (but would have us believe that they have a "self-taught degree" in medicine that's "just as good" as the real thing). His willingness to explain, in detail and in lay person's terms, the meaning of his findings to those unfamiliar with radiology (even those who talk a good game, but know next to nothing about the subject).

* Of course, where no error has been proved by the critic then no admission is forthcoming.

Thank you for posting this, Monk. I heartily agree... Just saw this post this morning.

quote on

I have been most impressed with his unusual patience when his work comes under attack by those who are not educated in the medical field, (but would have us believe that they have a "self-taught degree" in medicine that's "just as good" as the real thing). His willingness to explain, in detail and in lay person's terms, the meaning of his findings to those unfamiliar with radiology (even those who talk a good game, but know next to nothing about the subject).

quote off

It doesn't appear to be Dr. Mantik's nature to tell some to *buzz off*! And that's too bad!

You're welcome, David.

What I find most amazing is that we have so-called researchers here who have never themselves handled or directly examined the autopsy evidence, yet claim to have some inside info on what the evidence shows. Additionally, not only do they lack experience with handling, examining and testing these specific items of medical evidence, but they also lack having ANY experience with handling, examining or testing ANY medical evidence from ANY autopsy from ANYWHERE at ANY time. Not to mention that if they were granted such access to the evidence they wouldn't know where to start. Indeed, the National Archives will not even permit them near the evidence for lack of expertise!

Not to unfairly fault those without proper expertise, still, the least they could do is FIND AN EXPERT who could be granted access and describe to the expert what they want tested.

Sound science is often best expressed in measurements. Both David Mantik, MD. PhD, and Michael Chesser, MD were granted access to the autopsy materials--as the level of their expertise was recognized by the National Archives and Kennedy family Counsel-- where they took measurements and reported their findings. Some of the people who post here couldn't find a ruler with both hands, a map, and a flashlight.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Greg Burnham