Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It looks to me like Greg downplays the ridges that apparently should be on occipital bone (by hypothesizing that osteoporosis could have remodeled the skull), and Pat does the opposite (by posting a drawing that emphasizes the ridges).

(I don't believe Pat chose the drawing in order to trick people, but rather because the ridges can be hard to see in a photo.)

As one who had sided with Greg on this issue, I find it it disconcerting that he (or one of his doctor friends) has had to go into apology mode to keep his theory afloat. I think it is a stretch to add to it the hypothetical element of osteoporotic remodeling.

However, my position on this is far from being flipped. Because just as I see Greg in apology mode on the occipital ridge issue, Pat has long been in apology mode on the numerous medical personnel who saw the back-of-head blowout.

I've wondered if the Harper fragment was planted, in front of the limo, in order to support the single shooter theory. If anything, what I've witnessed here makes me consider that possibility more seriously.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

Hi Sandy

The location the Harper fragment was found has always been the fly in the ointment that Lone Nut supporters have used to deny its possibility of being occipital bone. It just makes sense; how could a bone from the back of the head be found in front of the limo's position at z313?

Want to read something REALLY interesting? It's known as Warren Commission Document 298. Here is a link to it:


It seems the FBI believed Connally was shot in the back at about the z313 position, and the fatal head shot occurred when the limo was almost at the steps of the pergola, approximately 45 feet further down Elm St. than the z313 position (see visual aid on Page 26).

Wow, that is crazy!

But maybe not so crazy after all. I mean, didn't the FBI have to watch the Zapruder film to come to these conclusions on when the shots were fired? If so, wouldn't this exhibit be a strong indicator that the Z film has since been altered? I should think so.

Now you're getting it! Remember, crazy is as crazy does, and the only thing limiting us is our ability to be amazed.

NEVER stop thinking outside of the box, my friend. :)

You missed it, Bob. Thinking the film was altered just because the FBI came to some curious conclusions IS thinking inside the box. The CT box, anyhow. The fact is that the SS, using the Z-film, placed the head shot at its current location within a few days of the shooting...and then MOVED it down the road a few weeks later, once they were tasked with giving specifics to their three shots three hits solution. The FBI then followed suit.

They were then made to retreat from this by the WC's staff, which had come to realize the inconsistency of the SS and FBI re-enactments with the films the re-enactments were purportedly based upon. The SS and FBI, using the same films, helped the WC perform a new re-enactment on 5-24-64 and came to quite different conclusions.

So why were the SS and FBI shooting scenarios so wrong? Well, context is everything. One possibility is that when these re-enactments were performed, in December '63, the SS and FBI were under the impression the WC was just gonna sign off on their reports. They had no idea anyone was gonna double-check their work. They presumed, moreover, that there were three shots three hits. Well, this lowered the shooting sequence down to less than six seconds. It seems possible, then, that in December 1963 the SS and FBI were concerned that the films depicted a shooting sequence at odds with Oswald's being the sole assassin, and chose to conceal this fact by pretending the final shot came when the limousine was much further down the road than it really was.

And then there's another possibility. Many of the early witness statements suggested there was a shot after the head shot. It seems possible, then, that the third shot coming further down the road in these scenarios was originally supposed to represent a third shot miss, but that SS and FBI bureaucrats intervened to change it to being a third shot hit, so that the shooting scenario would not be at odds with the recollections of Governor Connally. (Now that's thinking outside the box!)

This is discussed in great detail in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proper context of CD 298 is the memo from Redlich to Rankin of April 27th. Sent to me by David Josephs many months ago. And which I talked about at length on BOR.

It reads as follows:

"The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the presidential limousine. Our report will presumably state that the president was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the president by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building." (italics added)

"As our investigation now stands, however we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination." (italics added)

"Our examination of the Zapruder film shows that the fatal third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with reasonable accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the president and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up fixed objects in the movie frame where this shot occurs, we feel that we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be verified by a photo of the same spot from the point where Zapruder was standing."

"We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor did not come after frame 240, on the Zapruder film. The Governor feels it came around 230, which is certainly consistent with our observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the president was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least four seconds between the two shots, certainly ample for even an inexperienced marksman."

"Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally, we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225. We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum of 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at a 18 1/3 framers per second, there would have to be a minimum of forty frames between shots. It is apparent then that if Governor Connally was even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier." (Italics added)

"We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the president prior to frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the president prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlines the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.' (emphasis added)

"I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the approximate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible. Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this report in jeopardy, since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder films (Sic, i hope) and raise a the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If we do not attempt to answer these observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods available be to us." (emphasis added)

"I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture."(italics added)

"It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project. The important thing is that th project be undertaken expeditiously." (italics added)

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that is crazy!

But maybe not so crazy after all. I mean, didn't the FBI have to watch the Zapruder film to come to these conclusions on when the shots were fired? If so, wouldn't this exhibit be a strong indicator that the Z film has since been altered? I should think so.

Yes. And the x-rays. Which brings us right back to the medical evidence.

Yes, and the x-rays. The Fetzer wing of the CT community has long claimed they have been changed to hide a hole on the back of the head. The Fetzer wing cites the "white patch" identified by Mantik as support for this claim. And a large percentage of the research community buys into this. It makes sense to them. "The Parkland witnesses suggest there was a hole, but there's no hole on the x-ray--the hole therefore must have been covered up. Well, aha, Dr. Mantik has discovered a "patch". Ergo, this "patch" must be covering up the hole."

Only it's not as simple as that, is it, Greg? Mantik, to his credit, has long acknowledged that the "white patch" is inches away from where he believes the hole on the back of the head was located. Mantik has claimed, as well, that the back of the head on the lateral x-ray is unaltered.

Now, this is the tricky part that very few understand. Mantik claims he can see a hole on the back of the head on this unaltered part of the x-ray. While he says his OD measurements support the existence of this hole, he says it is readily apparent to the naked eye when viewing the originals. Now, this "hole" has gone unnoticed by everyone else to view the original x-rays, including many men far more qualified than Dr. Mantik. And the published x-rays offer no support for Mantik's claim of such a hole. While that doesn't mean he's wrong, it sure cuts into the ongoing claims of people like yourself that Mantik is this beacon of accepted science and that I am this ill-informed jerk challenging this wonderful beacon of accepted science. It's just not true. A number of long-time researchers see Mantik as an extension of your former leader Fetzer and his "Everything is fake/ Everyone is lying" school of critical thinking. These men have offered mucho support for my challenges to Mantik's theories.

But that's just gossip. Let's get back to the issue at hand. The x-rays. While Mantik claims his OD measurements prove the fragment behind the eye that he prefers to pretend is on the back of the head is fake, and the white patch on the side of the head equally fake, he also claims these measurements prove there was a hole in the shape of the Harper fragment on the back of the head. In other words, his whole book is based upon his belief the x-rays are authentic and unaltered at the back of the head, and show something not apparent to anyone but him.

So, no, Greg. While it seems clear you see my disagreements with Mantik as an obstacle that must be overcome, else "Panza" will be led in the wrong direction, that's not it at all. Mantik's underlying claim--that the back of the head on the x-rays is legit and shows a hole only noticed by him--is just a very hard sell. Outside of perhaps yourself, I doubt there's anyone on this forum (or any of the other forums I frequent) who is willing to go on such a ride.

That's one of the reasons I believe David is (at least for the most part) sincere. No one cooking up a theory to get attention or money would come up with such a thing. IMO.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat Speer said:

"... the ongoing claims of people like yourself that Mantik is this beacon of accepted science and that I am this ill-informed jerk challenging this wonderful beacon of accepted science."


You are again evading and avoiding. That is your prerogative, but it does not speak to the issues.

Your penchant for putting words in my mouth is tired and old.

I have never said or implied what you wrote above. Lose the martyr complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one reads the document I posted at number 79, one will see that even at the end of April, the WC was still adrift. Their shot sequencing, at least at the level of Redlich and Rankin, did not include the SBT. And they postulated a first shot at about frame 190.

The problem was that the demonstrations of the FBI and SS would not support this scenario, which they admit, was only a hypothesis and they could not prove with certainty. To the point that they called the SS and FBI completely wrong. And Redlich now wants the WC to supervise the next demonstration.

Also, Redlich says he wants a surveyor's map of Dealey Plaza included. But he does not want that map drawn until they have settled on their scenario. We all know, through the work of Chuck Marler, that the map was altered in the end.

When Pat says that the recent idea that there was a shot beyond 313, that this is CT thinking in the box, I don't understand that. First, this idea did not really gain any traction until Thompson's presentation in Pittsburgh at the 50th. Where Groden promptly endorsed the idea. And so did Mantik. The overwhelming majority of books critical of the Commission agreed with their Z 313 terminal shot scenario. As did the HSCA. As did me for another example.

But what with their three shot scenario of JFK at about 190, JBC at about 240, and JFK at 313, the WC had not completely adapted the Single Bullet Fantasy yet. But it would not have made any difference in this context since they see 313 as the final shot with that adapted.

Elmer Moore, who was major part of the cover up with the SS, understood very early this was going to be a problem. While he was in Dallas talking people like Perry out of his first day story, he went out to Dealey Plaza. He had a devil of a time putting together any kind of three shot scenario that accounted for the other variables.

We know what happened eventually. Arlen Specter went out there and lied his head off to make it work.

One last point: Very few people understand just how important Redlich was to the WC cover up. But in many ways he was as key as Rankin. One only has to read from people like Liebeler and Griffin as to how important he was at stamping out any dissent from the Junior counsel.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number of long-time researchers see Mantik as an extension of your former leader Fetzer and his "Everything is fake/ Everyone is lying" school of critical thinking.

Oh, wow, I didn't realize Greg Burnham is in the James Fetzer camp. I had no idea. That's definitely a game-changer for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try.

First: Guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

Second, as Pat well knows, Fetzer and I had a major falling out many years ago. He is not my friend nor do I subscribe to his theories. These days he rarely, if ever, makes worthwhile contributions, but they are so few and far between that they are mostly non-existent.

Michael, have you ever studied basic logic? If you have, then you already know that such an argument is not sound reasoning.

Also see my post: Fetzer and Guilt by Association

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mantik made a mistake in judgment by having Fetzer write the intro for his e book.

I chalk this up to the fact that Mantik does not spend a lot of time on the intricacies and politics and internecine feuds within the critical community. He has a family, with kids in college, and he has a medical practice. To my knowledge, unlike me, he is not retired yet.

It is not easy to keep track of these things if you do not have a lot of time to do so. Since my retirement in December, that is when I had the time to research and write my piece on Fetzer. I am sure that if Mantik would have known all of these things about Fetzer, he would not have had him write that intro. There are other people who would have done it, those without Fetzer's intolerable baggage.

And having lived through the Fetzer wars here at this site, which I write about in that two part essay, I know that Greg and Fetzer had a serious falling out a long time ago.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jim.

Now that we have that out of the way, back on topic.

PS: Irrespective of Fetzer's many shortcomings and my nearly total disagreement with him on almost everything, I do think that the introduction was, in fact, very well written. Like I said earlier in this thread, authorship is not nearly as important as is content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is discussed in great detail in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com.

But what's not discussed AT ALL here or at PatSpeer.com are the many, many red items contained in the article that is the title--and therefore the subject--of this thread.

Total nonsense. The things in red were either answered on my website or deliberately insulting. They deserve no response. As they were designed to distract the readers from Mantik's sloppy theories, moreover, my answering them would only serve to distract the followers of this thread from the issue at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There we have it. A refusal to address those specific issues.

You have something on your side, Pat.

It's like what Allen Dulles allegedly said about fears that the problems in the Warren Report might one day be discovered.

Paraphrased, he reportedly said: "Don't worry. Nobody reads."

Indeed, you are safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...