PatSpeer.com: Fact Check

[Ollie Curme]

Thanks Ollie for the time you spent writing your explanation. Finally I understand all the talk of this "mystery" photo. I also realize that much of what I had always seen as the inner surface of the skull is actually outer surface.

I saw the Michael Walton animated gif but didn't know from where he got the fracture lines and holes. Now I know it's from the mystery photo.

BTW, should it really be called a mystery photo? Well, it certainly was to me till now.

I think it was a mystery to everybody until Pat Speer took the time to figure it out. It must have been a mystery to whoever sanitized the files because it's very clear that there's no way a bullet could have entered at the EOP and exited from the hole you see.

...edited for brevity...

Is this 10 x 6.5 cm fragment, from the car ,an accepted fact? Accepted by the WC? Accepted by CT researchers? Is it the same as the Harper fragment? (I thought the Harper fragment was found outside the car.)

​No the 10x6.5 cm fragment is not the Harper fragment, that didn't show up for a few days, but the 10x6.5 cm fragment showed up during the autopsy and made it into the accepted story. Boswell made a little drawing of it at the bottom of page two of the autopsy face sheet:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=582#relPageId=2&tab=page

For those who don't trust the autopsy doctors, the finding of this fragment was described in the report by the FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy. See the second paragraph:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image5.htm

You can also learn about the fragment from Boswell's ARRB testimony. Boswell, unlike Humes was indiscrete and said things that were counter to the accepted story, like that they knew there was a bullet wound in the anterior neck the night of the autopsy. See pages 65-76 regarding Boswell's description of the skull wounds as drawn on the autopsy face sheet, including the 10x6.5 fragment:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0033a.htm

The X-ray of this fragment was some of the autopsy evidence which vanished. It is interesting to note that the FBI report notes external beveling on the fragment, and you can see external beveling in good copies of the mystery photo, see: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14%3Ademystifyingthemysteryphoto

Most researchers feel that external beveling in a skull hole is evidence of an exit wound. If that were true, this exit hole would have to had come from the front. Pat Speer argues that it's evidence for a tangential skull wound. Sherry Fiester in her latest book argues against over reliance on skull beveling to determine entrance or exit.

This indicates to me that the bone up there was missing.

That seems like the most reasonable explanation.. Of course, any missing fragment had to have come out a nearby hole in the scalp. And we can't see any holes in the BOH photo. A photo that shows much of the right side of the head as well. No large holes for fragments to escape. Same with the "stare of death" photo of the front. No big holes. If the photos are all authentic, every missing fragment had to have come out a hole in the scalp at the very top of the head, anterior to the ears but posterior to the forehead and front hairline. That doesn't leave much room for there to have be torn scalp from which fragments exited.

This is one reason I don't buy Pat's theory.

Well, there are two ways to view this. As Boswell describes there were a lot of scalp flaps over missing bones so that when the head exploded some skull fragments could have exited without the hair attached. However, I think it was Clint Hill who described seeing a large skull fragment in the back seat with hair on it. That would have logically been the 10x6.5 fragment and we know that that fragment fit right next to the half circled beveled skull wound at the vertex. So that would argue that the Back of Head photo was faked by putting in a photo overlay of hair over missing scalp. Pat Speer argues that it's authentic; I can accept the basis premise of his theory but can go either way on whether there has been hair added to the BOH photo.

So the issue in my mind is: If there was missing bone up there, which perhaps extended all the way down to the right rear margins of the defect as shown in the mystery photo, would that have afforded the Parkland doctors a view of occipital and parietal lobes? In other words, does the wound placement we see in the mystery photo allow for Parkland wound observations? I think it does.

So do I.

Take a look at a graphic from Pat Speer's Chapter 13: BOHcompwithovals.jpg

You can see the EOP inshoot hole circled in both the skull and the scalp, exactly where the autopsy doctors located it. There are more and bigger photos in Pat Speer's Chapter 13 that visualize this. The large skull defect begins, as Dr. Clark testified, above and lateral to the proposed EOP entrance wound. If the bone there was missing at Parkland, like the bone just above it by the half circle beveled hole, then that's low enough to afford a view of the occipital and parietal lobes and for Dr. Clark to assess the damage therein.

With respect to shot trajectories, Mr. Speer, and perhaps Ms. Cranor, both have suggested that the shot that entered low in the hairline traveled down the neck and out the front of the neck. Mr. Speer has that shot going in the EOP inshoot hole which can be seen in both the skull and scalp. Ms. Cranor proposed that that shot may have bypassed the skull and just traveled down the neck, but I believe she made that proposal prior to Mr. Speer's discovery of the visible EOP wound.

What you describe here is also what I believe, except I believe the fragment(s) going down through the neck broke off a piece of bone and this bone fragment exited the throat. Because there are holes in the shirt at that location which were apparently caused by the exiting projectile, and the holes tested negative for metal traces. To me it seems more likely that the bullet deflected off the base of the skull rather than entering. If so, it still could have punched a hole in the skull like the tangential wounds you describe here.

BTW according to autopsy witness Lt. Lipsey, Humes and the others were certain that the bullet that hit the back of the skull exited the throat. I suspect that that is what Humes wrote on his initial notes that he later burned.

​I agree the apparent wound track between the EOP hole and the front of the throat could have been caused by either a bullet or a bullet fragment or a bone fragment. If not a whole bullet you have to ask where did the whole bullet go and the answer could be it was in the neck and could be seen in the missing cervical neck X-ray which is why that X-ray disappeared. However none of the autopsy witnesses mentioned discussion of such a thing; I can go either way.

Mr. Speer has a long discussion of tangential (or gutter) wounds in his chapter 16b: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter16b%3Adigginginthedirt

These wounds are like a ricochet, the bullet hits, travels a short way along or through the surface and then flies off again. As Dr. Clark describes in his testimony, tangential wounds often generate far more trauma to the brain than a bullet which passes through the brain because the broken skull pieces act like secondary missiles and can cause extensive brain damage. See:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35&search=kemp_clark+tangential#relPageId=31&tab=page

As I mentioned in a reply to Greg Burnham, the hypothesis of a tangential shot hitting the top of JKF's head from the rear has another piece of supporting evidence, which is the presence of skin tissue in one of the bullet fragments found in the front compartment of the limousine: CE 567, the nose bullet fragment allegedly found in the front compartment of the limo was tested and found to have human skin tissue on it:

http://www.maryferre...man skin tissue

Many people think that CE 567 and CE 569 are the remains of a bullet which hit the chrome molding near the rear view mirror. So how could they have gotten skin on them? Well, here are three hypotheses:

1) The bullet was fired from behind, richocheted off the top right side of JFK’s head and then hit the chrome strip. This, I believe is Pat Speer’s hypothesis.

2) The bullet was fired from behind and ricocheted off the top of a seat. Less likely to have a richochet off a soft seat.

3) The FBI planted evidence.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Ollie Curme

[Sandy Larsen]

Does anyone here know the size, location, and cause of JFK's wounds?

I don't know all the details off the top of my head. But after discussing the wounds with knowledgeable people like Robert Prudhomme, I feel like I've got a pretty good idea as to all the wounds except for the large head one. This thread is helping me understand the large head wound better.

Here's what I believe:

Back wound: A frangible bullet hit the back and a "spray" of bullet powder penetrated the pleural cavity, resulting in a collapse right lung. This was the first shot that hit Kennedy, and it occurred just before he appeared from behind the Stemmons sign. The collapsed lung explains why he was reaching for his throat. (Not because of a shot to the throat.)

External Occipital Protuberance Wound: A bullet -- some type of frangible one -- hit low on the skull and was deflected down through the neck. It fragmented and the fragments could be seen on an x-ray. A fragment hit a bone, breaking off a tiny piece, and this piece made and exited through the Throat Wound behind the necktie knot. The bone fragment cut through the shirt and nicked the back of the necktie knot before coming to a rest. It fell from that location before anybody had a chance to see it. This shot hit just a tiny fraction of a second before the shot that caused Kennedy's head to fly back and to the left. It caused Kennedy's head to drop downward just before it flew back and to the left.

Temple Wound: This is the one that caused Kennedy's head to fly back and to the left. I haven't studied it much. I thought for a long time that it was caused by a shot from the top of the grassy knoll. But something Ollie said in a recent post has made me wonder about that. It seems that it couldn't have entered the temple area and exited the back of the head had it originated from the grassy knoll. I need to explore this further.

The following is preliminary.

Muffled Bang: Misses JFK, hits the curb, a chip from which hits Tague.

o

o

o

o

o

o

BANG: Hits JFK's back.

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

BANG: Hits Connally.

o

o

o

o

BANG BANG: (Two shots, sounded like one.) First hits JFK's skull EOP area . Second makes JFK's gaping wound.

This is why so many witnesses heard three shots (didn't hear the muffled shot), yet others four (did hear the muffled shot).

[Ollie Curme]

Sandy:

This goes back to the importance of Bethesda photographer Karl McDonald as a witness. Who everyone likes to ignore. For whatever reason.

See, he told the ARRB that for every impact wound area, there should be three shots: close up, medium shot, distance shot. That, of course, helps orient the viewer as to what he is looking at.

It took years, actually decades, for the critical community to orient that shot. And even today there are people who argue about it.

In my opinion, this was deliberate.

Jim, I agree. Stringer was supposed to be the best, but when you look at those photos they are terrible: out of focus, not centered on what they're supposed to be taking, and even if you add in the ones which went missing, there are far too few to adequately document the wounds. Now on one hand, most were reportedly taken at the beginning of the autopsy when they were told it was a rush job because Jackie was waiting for them to finish and Burkley told them their job was to "just find the bullets." But I think there is strong indication that the cover up was in play by the time the autopsy started, the cover up didn't start on Saturday.

[James DiEugenio]

In my view, there is no way to explain that terrible performance by Stringer.

And it is one of the really sore points about why its so hard to make any sense of this autopsy.

And I think one of the failures of the HSCA was in this area. At least the ARRB made an attempt to try and investigate this mystery.

I also agree, that even if you add in the five pics that Gunn and Horne concluded are missing, that does not equal the battery that should be there.

[Greg Burnham]

If I had started a thread topic titled: The Head Wound(s) -- then the posts directly related to that general subject would be on topic.

If someone started inserting "Pat Speer Fact Check" posts into that thread -- those would be off topic.

So too in this thread is general discussion about the head wound(s) off topic. Only as to how they may relate to the fact checking are they relevant.

Please do not derail this thread on the grounds that general information about the head wound(s) is/are part of the topic.

[Sandy Larsen]

...edited for brevity...

Is this 10 x 6.5 cm fragment, from the car ,an accepted fact? Accepted by the WC? Accepted by CT researchers? Is it the same as the Harper fragment? (I thought the Harper fragment was found outside the car.)

​No the 10x6.5 cm fragment is not the Harper fragment, that didn't show up for a few days, but the 10x6.5 cm fragment showed up during the autopsy and made it into the accepted story. Boswell made a little drawing of it at the bottom of page two of the autopsy face sheet:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=582#relPageId=2&tab=page

For those who don't trust the autopsy doctors, the finding of this fragment was described in the report by the FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy. See the second paragraph:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image5.htm

You can also learn about the fragment from Boswell's ARRB testimony. Boswell, unlike Humes was indiscrete and said things that were counter to the accepted story, like that they knew there was a bullet wound in the anterior neck the night of the autopsy. See pages 65-76 regarding Boswell's description of the skull wounds as drawn on the autopsy face sheet, including the 10x6.5 fragment:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0033a.htm

The X-ray of this fragment was some of the autopsy evidence which vanished. It is interesting to note that the FBI report notes external beveling on the fragment, and you can see external beveling in good copies of the mystery photo, see: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14%3Ademystifyingthemysteryphoto

Most researchers feel that external beveling in a skull hole is evidence of an exit wound. If that were true, this exit hole would have to had come from the front. Pat Speer argues that it's evidence for a tangential skull wound. Sherry Fiester in her latest book argues against over reliance on skull beveling to determine entrance or exit.

The more I read the testimony Ollie linked to, the more I believe there was pre-autopsy surgery... just as Humes said, as recorded by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill.

Then I recall that NOBODY at Parkland saw a gaping hole at the top of JFK's head. Not one. Yet, at Bathesda witnesses gasped when they saw the top-right of JFK's head being gone.

I trust the numerous witnesses more than I do the photos, x-rays, and autopsy doctors. Especially the photos and x-rays. I think Humes resented having to lie, not sure about Boswell. So I trust some of what Humes said, and I trust him more than those in the HSCA who contradicted his autopsy report.

But even when Humes told the truth, that doesn't mean it necessarily reflected the truth. Because he was given a tampered-with corpse. I'm more convinced of that than ever.

And I'm convinced the BOH photo is either fake or tampered with.

[Sandy Larsen]

o

o

o

Clark's March 21, 1964 testimony for the Warren Commission offers some support for this selection. He testified: "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." Later, however, when discussing Dr. Perry's initial description of the throat wound as an entrance wound, he said "Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head." Yes, he said "top of his head." Still later, Warren Commission Counsel Arlen Specter referred to this wound as a wound "at the top of the head," and asked if Clark saw any other wounds, and he replied "No sir, I did not." When then asked if his recollections were consistent with the autopsy report's description of an entrance wound slightly above and an inch to the right of the EOP, he replied "Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present." He had thereby claimed the wound he examined was entirely above the EOP, and more than an inch to its right. Well, this would be well above and to the right of where so many theorists propose the wound to have been located. It would, in fact, rule out the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Clark was then asked if his observations were consistent with the autopsy report's conclusion of a bullet entering near the EOP, and "exiting from the center of the President's skull." He replied: "Yes, sir." When brought back four days later, and asked about a February 20 article in the French paper L'Express, where it was claimed he'd told the New York Times the first bullet entered at the knot of Kennedy's tie and penetrated Kennedy's chest, and that the second bullet hit "the right side of his head" and caused a "tangential" wound of both entrance and exit, furthermore, Clark disagreed with its characterization of his statements regarding the first bullet, but said nothing about its characterization of the second. In sum, then, while Clark's report and testimony suggest he saw a wound on the back of the head, a closer look at his testimony shows he was agreeable that this wound was at the top right side of the head, and consistent with the wound described in the autopsy report.

o

o

o

Wow. I'm not a fast enough reader to keep up with you, Pat. I just wanted to know if you inform your readers what the Parkland doctors said. Early on, like 1963 and 1964.

I skimmed what you wrote looking for quotes from Dr. Clark that disagree with his statements indicating the head wound was on the right poseterior of the skull. Here is what I first came up with.

[Dr. Clark] testified: "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." Later, however, when discussing Dr. Perry's initial description of the throat wound as an entrance wound, he said "Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head." Yes, he said "top of his head."

This leaves the distinct impression that Clark changed his testimony from back-of-the-head to top-of-the-head. And that Perry had agreed with him

How could that be, I thought. So I checked it out. Here's the testimony I found:

Dr. CLARK - All right. Let me check what I remember Dr. Perry said at the first press conference. He was asked if the neck wound could be a wound of entrance or appeared to be a wound of exit, and Dr. Perry said something like "possibly or conceivably," or something of this sort.

Mr. SPECTER - And, did he elaborate as to how that projectory would have been possible in that press conference?

Dr. CLARK - He did not elaborate on this. One of the reporters with gestures indicated the direction that such a bullet would have to take, and Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - But that was a possible trajectory under the circumstances?

Dr. CLARK - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - How would that have been postulated in terms of striking specific parts of the body?

Dr. CLARK - Well, on a speculation, this would mean that the missile would have had to have been fired from below-- upward or that the President was hanging upside down.

Look at that, Pat. Dr. Clark is NOT making any statement at all about a top-of-the-head wound. He is telling Specter that Dr. Perry had to agree with one of the reporter who, through gestures, was indicating the path the bullet would have to take.

Not only did Dr. Clark not make the statement your excerpt implies, he goes on to say that the "missile would have had to have been fired from below -- upward or that the President was hanging upside down." I wouldn't call that an endorsement of the top-of-head idea... would you?

This is very misleading Pat. It reminds me of stuff I've seen on McAdams' site.

Clark and Perry suspected the bullet entering the neck exited from the back of the head. His use of the words "top of the head," then indicate he thought the wound was on the top of the back of the head.

Perhaps my approach is too nuanced. In chapter 18d I explain my reasons for suspecting the autopsy photos are legit, and it's not because Dr. Clark changed his testimony, if that's what you think. Clark's description of the wound as extending into the parietal area indicates it was on the right rear top of the head. As demonstrated, he also made several references to the top of the head in his testimony. I never intended to imply that he had changed his testimony, and had moved the wound from the back of the head to the top of the head, if that's what you think. His job was to report his recollections. He did.

The problem is that some--perhaps most--Kennedy researchers swallowed Groden's claim the Parkland witnesses supported the accuracy of the McClelland drawing, hook, line, and sinker. The McClelland drawing depicts the wound as residing entirely on the back of the head, inches away from the top of the head. The main objective behind my writing of chapters 18c and 18d was to get people to stop claiming the McClelland drawing was an accurate depiction of Kennedy's wound.,

As Ms. Cranor and others have raced right past the McClelland drawing, and have chosen to believe I'm twisting words to try to make it look like Clark was describing a wound ONLY on the top of the head, it appears I've had some success in that area.

Pat,

I'm not influenced by either Groden or the drawing attributed to McClelland. I *do* get information from Dr. Aguilar's List of Wound Witnesses. I've found it to be a reliable resource. It is well written and includes the history of changing testimonies. It includes only Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, which totals 46 people.

What I'd like to do is explore Dr. Clark's testimony and see if he really did accept the top of the head idea. Or more specifically, if he took seriously the idea of the wound not being in the rear at all. So far I have not seen that.

You say, "Clark and Perry suspected the bullet entering the neck exited from the back of the head." Yes, that is my understanding. But then you say, "His use of the words "top of the head," then indicate he thought the wound was on the top of the back of the head." Please tell me where, in his testimony, the top of the head location is his idea... not Perry's or Specter's.

Actually it would be useful to also see Perry's view on this. (BTW, he apparently changed his testimony sometime between 1978 and 1992.)

Bumped for Pat Speer to respond.

(Okay Greg, I'm back on topic. I want to see if Dr. Clark really did think the gaping wound might have been at the top of the head exclusively.)

[Ollie Curme]

Pat Speer has done a superb effort in allowing us to orient and understand the mystery photo, which shows a skull defect extending towards the rear of the skull including a great amount of lost parietal bone and some occipital bone. The point I want to make is that you don't need a McClelland style occipital bone blowout to observe the back of the brain. I have posted a picture of a skull below with just the parietal bone missing; as you can see, the view extends all the way to the back of the skull. So my point is that Pat Speer's orientation of the mystery photo has allowed us to understand how the Parkland witness observations with respect to occipital and parietal lobes is completely compatible with the mystery photo autopsy observation.

[Pat Speer]

Ollie Curme said: We have the autopsy report, which is suspect, but it's reasonable to think that...

Greg Burnham finishes the sentence with ... under such circumstances, anything we glean from it is also suspect, as in, if A = B and B = C then A = C.

Ollie Curme said: We have the autopsy photos and X-rays, which again, may have been altered, but there is probably some evidence there.

Greg Burnham: However, if the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered then any "evidence" they contain is unreliably suspect by definition. Moreover, the probative value of the presumed existence of "evidence there" (assumed by Curme) cannot be reasonably established.

Again, under the circumstances of having to evaluate "suspect" evidence ... while the autopsy report can be properly used for self-impeachment purposes, it otherwise has limited utility in terms of discovery. That's why Millicent refrains from discussing the reliability of the autopsy report itself and confines her observations to Pat Speer's treatment of that same evidence (autopsy report and expert witness testimony contained therein and elsewhere).

This is why I recommend to Jon that he conduct his own research. It's not because I don't wish to be helpful. It's because someone of Jon's intellect and ability has the wherewithal to evaluate the potential probative value--or lack thereof--of available "evidence."

Greg, I know you want to keep this thread focused on attacking Pat Speer by arguing that he used witness testimony that you and Millicent don't think is reliable, but that's not what Jon asked. Jon was asking about our knowledge of JKF's wounds. And to completely dismiss the autopsy report and photos and X-rays when trying to understand JFK's wounds is ridiculous. In Ms. Cranor's article, The Third Wound, she relies heavily on her and others' interpretation of the mystery photo and the Back of Head photo and the X-rays to present her hypothesis that JKF had suffered a bullet wound to the head and another which linked his anterior throat wound to the rear head or high neck. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; use a little judgement in evaluating evidence in order to assess what is probably real and what has been falsified.

We are not attacking Pat Speer. This is an evaluation and/or criticism of his methodology, arguments, and ultimately, conclusions.

That's absolute nonsense, Greg.

The fact is this. Neither Milicent nor Greg ever raised a finger when:

1. Robert Groden published a series of photos showing people pointing to, on average, a location at the back of the head, near the crown, entirely above the tops of the ears, and said it supported the accuracy of the so-called McClelland drawing, which showed a wound on the right back of the head, almost entirely below the tops of the ears.

2. Dr. Aguilar and others began publishing lists of every so-called Parkland and Bethesda witness, which suggested these witnesses saw a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, while failing to acknowledge that there were a number of witnesses in Dealy Plaza, who saw a wound precisely where it is shown in the Zapruder film and autopsy photos.

3.Dr. Mantik began claiming the Harper fragment had been dislodged from the middle of the back of Kennedy's head, almost entirely below the tops of his ears, AND that the area above the Harper fragment (on which Mantik claimed to see a small fragment corresponding in location but not in size with the so-called 6.5 mm fragment) was intact.

4. Dr. Fetzer and others, including Jim Douglass, started claiming the "white patch" on the x-rays was added to cover up the hole left in the absence of the Harper fragment. (To be clear, Dr. Mantik eventually admitted this was nonsense--but only after I forced the issue.)

5. Dr. Mantik spoke at the 2009 Lancer Conference, and casually dismissed a report written by Doug Horne on his 1996 interview of Dr. John Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist, and more aggressively attacked "Speer's Theory" holding that the "white patch" was in fact the "wing" of bone dangling down the side of the head in the right lateral autopsy photo. He neglected to tell his audience, however, that "Speer's Theory" (which he presented as the theory of a silly layman) was really Fitzpatrick's conclusion (a conclusion arrived at by one of the most qualified--if not the most qualified--man to study the x-rays), and that he and Horne had known about this for 13 years or more.

6. Mantik spent four years (from 2009-2013) telling everyone I couldn't properly orient the x-ray of the Harper fragment (in relation to photos of the Harper fragment) when it was he who was all confused, and couldn't tell one end from the other. (To be clear, here, once again, Mantik admitted his mistake, but only after being co-erced into "debating" me on the fragment at Duquesne University, and realizing he would look even more foolish if he failed to admit his mistake.)

7. Mantik continued pushing that the Harper fragment was occipital bone, when even a cursory study of its underside proved it was not dislodged from where Mantik said it had been dislodged.

I could go on and on. In my decade plus researching this case, I have come across two aspects of the case where people approach the case more like a religion than a study of history. And that's the single-bullet theory--where single-assassin theorists are blind as bats and more than willing to excuse the deceptions of Specter Lattimer, Myers, etc. And Kennedy's large head wound--where conspiracy theorists will swallow almost anything suggesting the shot came from the front--and attack anything running counter to this theory as CIA disinformation, etc.

It's embarrassing, IMO.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

Pat:

In you point number seven above, are you talking about the claims of Dr. Joe Riley?

[Pat Speer]

Pat:

In you point number seven above, are you talking about the claims of Dr. Joe Riley?

No, I'm talking about this. The underside of the Harper fragment bears no resemblance whatsoever to the underside of the occipital bone. It never did. It never will. I was gonna point this out in Pittsburgh, but decided to focus on my own stuff after Mantik admitted he was wrong about the x-ray. I screwed up.

[Greg Burnham]

From Dr. Michael Chesser:

My review of the x-rays and the scalp retraction photograph leads me to the following conclusions:

1. There is a dark area on the AP x-ray, inferior to the left lambdoid suture, with sharp demarcation, which can only be explained by missing occipital bone. This skull defect extends to the left of midline in the upper portion of the occipital bone, and has an outline which is consistent with the Harper fragment.

2. I could not see the right lambdoid suture on the AP x-ray, and this indicates bone loss at least involving the right occipital-parietal junction.

3. The AP x-ray also reveals a dark area inferior and lateral to the orbit on the right side, compared with the left, indicating loss of bone/brain substance in the temporal and occipital region.

4. On the lateral x-ray the lower occipital skull appears disrupted, with jagged fragments. Dr. Mantik's OD data confirm missing bone in various regions of the occipital bone.

5. I agree with Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment. If the three Dallas pathologists were living I would ask them about the features which were visible on the bone fragment which led them to this conclusion. They were looking at a portion of the skull of the President, and I don't believe that they came to a hasty conclusion, and they must have seen clear features which localized to the occipital bone. The central occipital skull defect seen on the scalp retraction photograph, and the outline of the dark area on the AP x-ray both point toward the Harper fragment's localization to this area.

6. I believe that the central (extending to the left) occipital skull defect is separate from the exit wound identified by the Parkland and Bethesda personnel. The right occipital wound was described as missing overlying scalp and meninges. I think that the area of the Harper fragment was most likely an area in which there was an overlying flap of scalp. It is also possible that these defects were partially contiguous, with the region of the Harper fragment covered by the scalp.

==================================

Also see Dr. Chesser's article: A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs

Edited March 9, 2016 by Greg Burnham

[Pat Speer]

From Dr. Michael Chesser:

My review of the x-rays and the scalp retraction photograph leads me to the following conclusions:

1. There is a dark area on the AP x-ray, inferior to the left lambdoid suture, with sharp demarcation, which can only be explained by missing occipital bone. This skull defect extends to the left of midline in the upper portion of the occipital bone, and has an outline which is consistent with the Harper fragment.

2. I could not see the right lambdoid suture on the AP x-ray, and this indicates bone loss at least involving the right occipital-parietal junction.

3. The AP x-ray also reveals a dark area inferior and lateral to the orbit on the right side, compared with the left, indicating loss of bone/brain substance in the temporal and occipital region.

4. On the lateral x-ray the lower occipital skull appears disrupted, with jagged fragments. Dr. Mantik's OD data confirm missing bone in various regions of the occipital bone.

5. I agree with Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment. If the three Dallas pathologists were living I would ask them about the features which were visible on the bone fragment which led them to this conclusion. They were looking at a portion of the skull of the President, and I don't believe that they came to a hasty conclusion, and they must have seen clear features which localized to the occipital bone. The central occipital skull defect seen on the scalp retraction photograph, and the outline of the dark area on the AP x-ray both point toward the Harper fragment's localization to this area.

6. I believe that the central (extending to the left) occipital skull defect is separate from the exit wound identified by the Parkland and Bethesda personnel. The right occipital wound was described as missing overlying scalp and meninges. I think that the area of the Harper fragment was most likely an area in which there was an overlying flap of scalp. It is also possible that these defects were partially contiguous, with the region of the Harper fragment covered by the scalp.

==================================

Also see Dr. Chesser's article: A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs

1. The early reports suggested the hole on Kennedy's head was on the back of his head. Dr. Cairns' impression the Harper fragment was occipital, then, is not the impression of someone getting out an anatomy book and comparing grooves, etc, but the impression of someone looking at an unidentified piece of bone and saying "Yeah, that's got some curvature. That could be occipital bone." It is also a mistake to believe a pathologist has any particular expertise re skull fragments. The experts on skull fragment analysis and skull reconstruction are Forensic Anthropologists. The most prominent Forensic Anthropologist of his time was Dr. Angel. He believed the Harper Fragment was parietal. I suspect he was correct in this assessment.

2. Dr. Chesser seems to be proposing there were two large exits on the back of the head. One on the right side of the back of the head involving skin and bone seen at Parkland, and one on the middle and left of the back of the head unnoticed by everyone at Parkland and Bethesda, seeing as it was covered by scalp. This is ludicrous, IMO. The Harper fragment was found a hundred feet or more forward of Kennedy's location at frame 313, when he was struck in the head. Mantik wants us to believe it was blown out the back of the head, but then moved to be in front of Kennedy's location by... someone. Now, Chesser wants us to believe this 2 1/2 inch triangle of bone was blown out the back of the head without blasting a hole in the overlying scalp. This is bizarre, to say the least. (What? Did it somehow flip FORWARDS and to the right within the skull and curl over the top and side of the intact scalp? I don't see how this makes sense.)

[Sandy Larsen]

While I disagree with Pat Speer regarding the location of the skull exit wound, I would like to know the following:

1) How was it that the Harper fragment ended up 100 ft. forward of Kennedy at Z frame 313?

2) If the Harper fragment is occipital bone, how is it that it doesn't have on its interior surface the ridges and grooves characteristic of occipital bone, as Pat pointed out on a photo he posted earlier? What do Drs. Mantik and Chesser have to say about that?

Edited March 10, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Greg Burnham]

While I disagree with Pat Speer regarding the location of the skull exit wound, I would like to know the following:

1) How was it that the Harper fragment ended up 100 ft. forward of Kennedy at Z frame 313?

2) If the Harper fragment is occipital bone, how is it that it doesn't have on its interior surface the ridges and grooves characteristic of occipital bone, as Pat pointed out on a photo he posted earlier? What do Drs. Mantik and Chesser have to say about that?

Stay tuned...more to come.

Note: Speer did not post a "photo" of the occipital interior surface. Rather, it appears to be an artist's rendering.