Doug Horne greatly praises Dr. David Mantik's new JFK Assassination book!

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh boy, here we go. The "white patch" is on the side of the head, and not the back of the head. When I pointed this out to Fetzer 10 years ago or so he flipped out and said I must be wrong because the "white patch" covered the large hole low on the posterior skull he so desperately wanted to believe existed. So he confronted Mantik on this, and Mantik confirmed what I said--and he repeated this confirmation at our dueling presentation debate in 2013. Mantik said well yes, the white patch does not extend to the back of the skull, and said further that it did not cover missing skull. He said it covers missing brain. 

So, in short, many of Mantik's biggest supporters have no idea what he's actually concluded. He has an impressive CV and he has some scientific-sounding OD readings. But they really have no idea what he's concluded.  

I think you are overstating matters. Here's some of what Dr. Mantik himself says in one of his replies to your critique of his research on the white patch:

          No, it does not – nor could it even do so in principle. First, these are two distinctly different areas, as should be obvious from the right lateral X-ray – the White Patch is much more posterior than the overlap area. See my image of the White Patch in Assassination Science 1998, p. 160, or slide 5 in my Dallas lecture, or my Figure 5 just below. . . .

          In his image (my Figure 6 here), Speer locates the "Actual tip of ‘wing'," presumably meaning its most posterior tip (although his syntax is fuzzy). Even if that unreasonably far posterior location is accepted, it is still far too anterior to match the posterior border of the White Patch. The location of the White Patch, especially its posterior border, has repeatedly been confirmed by the OD data – it does not depend on the human eye (although it does match what the eye sees); in fact, the whitest area lies immediately anterior to the inner table of the occipital skull, well posterior to anyone's location for the "wing." (JFK Autopsy X-rays: David Mantik vs. Pat Speer (kennedysandking.com)

I think Dr. Mantik shows, in his always-polite way, that on most issues regarding the skull x-rays, you simply do not know what you are talking about. 

Most of the back-of-head witnesses said the large wound was in the right "occipital-parietal" area, so part of the wound was on the right side of the head, not just on the back of the head. I should not have said that the patch covers "most" of the area described by witnesses. I should have said "part," and I've corrected my previous reply accordingly. To my non-professional eyes, the white patch appears to be in a location that would cover at least a small part of the anterior edge of the wound described by the the witnesses.

One thing is certain: The white patch has no corresponding image on the A-P x-ray, but it should if both x-rays are pristine. If the white patch is not an artifact that was placed on the lateral x-ray, then the A-P x-ray should contain an image of bone that corresponds to the white patch, but it does not. 

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

59 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I think you are overstating matters. Here's some of what Dr. Mantik himself says in one of his replies to your critique of his research on the white patch:

          No, it does not – nor could it even do so in principle. First, these are two distinctly different areas, as should be obvious from the right lateral X-ray – the White Patch is much more posterior than the overlap area. See my image of the White Patch in Assassination Science 1998, p. 160, or slide 5 in my Dallas lecture, or my Figure 5 just below. . . .

          In his image (my Figure 6 here), Speer locates the "Actual tip of ‘wing'," presumably meaning its most posterior tip (although his syntax is fuzzy). Even if that unreasonably far posterior location is accepted, it is still far too anterior to match the posterior border of the White Patch. The location of the White Patch, especially its posterior border, has repeatedly been confirmed by the OD data – it does not depend on the human eye (although it does match what the eye sees); in fact, the whitest area lies immediately anterior to the inner table of the occipital skull, well posterior to anyone's location for the "wing." (JFK Autopsy X-rays: David Mantik vs. Pat Speer (kennedysandking.com)

I think Dr. Mantik shows, in his always-polite way, that on most issues regarding the skull x-rays, you simply do not know what you are talking about. 

Most of the back-of-head witnesses said the large wound was in the right "occipital-parietal" area, so part of the wound was on the right side of the head, not just on the back of the head. I should not have said that the patch covers "most" of the area described by witnesses. I should have said "part," and I've corrected my previous reply accordingly. To my non-professional eyes, the white patch appears to be in a location that would cover at least a small part of the anterior edge of the wound described by the the witnesses.

One thing is certain: The white patch has no corresponding image on the A-P x-ray, but it should if both x-rays are pristine. If the white patch is not an artifact that was placed on the lateral x-ray, then the A-P x-ray should contain an image of bone that corresponds to the white patch, but it does not. 

 

Congratulations! You can repeat talking points. But Mantik is wrong about almost all this stuff. Here are two examples. First, that those citing Mantik's white patch as support for a hole in the low occipital are full of cashews, and second that the white patch does absolutely positively correlate with the the wing of bone draped down the side of the head on the autopsy photos. 

 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Congratulations! You can repeat talking points. But Mantik is wrong about almost all this stuff. Here are two examples. First, that those citing Mantik's white patch as support for a hole in the low occipital are full of cashews, and second that the white patch does absolutely positively correlate with the the wing of bone draped down the side of the head on the autopsy photos. 

 

 

 

I see. Well, I think you're the one who is wrong about this. I find your arguments about the "wing" as an explanation for the white patch far-fetched, not to mention that they ignore the OD measurements. 

When you find a pristine x-ray of a human skull that shows a similar white patch, a patch 1,000 times brighter than it should be, let me know.

I am starting to conclude that you are one of those people who feels compelled to attack everyone else's research. 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I see. Well, I think you're the one who is wrong about this. I find your arguments about the "wing" as an explanation for the white patch far-fetched, not to mention that they ignore the OD measurements. 

When you find a pristine x-ray of a human skull that shows a similar white patch, a patch 1,000 times brighter than it should be, let me know.

I am starting to conclude that you are one of those people who feels compelled to attack everyone else's research. 

While Mantik has told audiences that the wing of bone's being the white spot is "Speer's theory" I can not take credit for it and his claiming it as such is a weaselly argument from authority, IMO. He expects people to believe him as it's his word against mine and he has a neato keeno degree. 

Only it isn't his word against mine...

The "wing" argument was actually proposed long before I first proposed it. 

From chapter 18b at patspeer.com: 

In 1996 Doug Horne showed the x-rays to three outside experts, two of whom commented on the white patch. Forensic Anthropologist Douglas Ubelaker, upon viewing the lateral x-rays, noted "overlapping bone fragments" in the "temporal-parietal region of the lateral x-rays." This is almost certainly a reference to the white area noted by Mantik. More specifically, however, Forensic Radiologist John J. Fitzpatrick, a man with far more expertise on these matters than Mantik, confirmed that "overlapping bone is clearly present in the lateral skull x-rays" and that "the red flap above the ear" in the autopsy photos "equates with the overlapping bone in the lateral skull x-rays."

(Well, I'll be. Although Mantik summarized the findings of Ubelaker and Fitzpatrick in 2013 presentation, he failed to report that they'd both foreshadowed and offered strong support for what he chose to call "Speer's theory." It's hard to believe this was an oversight.)

And they weren't the only ones telling Horne and the ARRB the white patch represented overlapping bone. 

On 10-21-97, Edward Reed, one of the two x-ray techs to assist in the autopsy of President Kennedy, testified before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). When examining the lateral x-rays, Reed noted "The dark spot that I am pointing to right now is a less dense area. There's hardly any bone there. And there's only one side intact. Whereas here, posteriorly, where I'm pointing to now is--the white area--is where the bones overlap."

 

So no, Michael, it is not I who is pushing silly conclusions at odds with the conclusions of radiology professionals...

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

While Mantik has told audiences that the wing of bone's being the white spot is "Speer's theory" I can not take credit for it and his claiming it as such is a weaselly argument from authority, IMO. He expects people to believe him as it's his word against mine and he has a neato keeno degree. 

Only it isn't his word against mine...

The "wing" argument was actually proposed long before I first proposed it. 

From chapter 18b at patspeer.com: 

In 1996 Doug Horne showed the x-rays to three outside experts, two of whom commented on the white patch. Forensic Anthropologist Douglas Ubelaker, upon viewing the lateral x-rays, noted "overlapping bone fragments" in the "temporal-parietal region of the lateral x-rays." This is almost certainly a reference to the white area noted by Mantik. More specifically, however, Forensic Radiologist John J. Fitzpatrick, a man with far more expertise on these matters than Mantik, confirmed that "overlapping bone is clearly present in the lateral skull x-rays" and that "the red flap above the ear" in the autopsy photos "equates with the overlapping bone in the lateral skull x-rays."

(Well, I'll be. Although Mantik summarized the findings of Ubelaker and Fitzpatrick in 2013 presentation, he failed to report that they'd both foreshadowed and offered strong support for what he chose to call "Speer's theory." It's hard to believe this was an oversight.)

And they weren't the only ones telling Horne and the ARRB the white patch represented overlapping bone. 

On 10-21-97, Edward Reed, one of the two x-ray techs to assist in the autopsy of President Kennedy, testified before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). When examining the lateral x-rays, Reed noted "The dark spot that I am pointing to right now is a less dense area. There's hardly any bone there. And there's only one side intact. Whereas here, posteriorly, where I'm pointing to now is--the white area--is where the bones overlap."

 

So no, Michael, it is not I who is pushing silly conclusions at odds with the conclusions of radiology professionals...

Wait a minute. Wait just a minute here. The white patch is not in the temporal-parietal area of the skull, and it is certainly not in the same location as the red flap above the ear in the autopsy photos. I don't need to be a medical expert to see that, and to see it clearly. Any expert who has concluded otherwise either had an agenda or did not study the x-rays carefully enough. The white patch is clearly behind the ear, and its posterior edge comes close to the occipital region, so there is no way it is the flap above the ear in the autopsy photos. 

I again refer interested readers to Dr. Mantik's reply to Pat Speers on this matter: JFK Autopsy X-rays: David Mantik vs. Pat Speer (kennedysandking.com)

 

[Cliff Varnell]

https://throughtheoswaldwindow.com/articles/dr-david-mantik/

Mantik:  

1. No bullet struck JFK in the back—or in the throat. The Single Bullet Theory is nonsense. The (superficial) back wound was likely caused by metallic shrapnel.

On the subject of JFK’s back wound Mantik and Speer take turns driving the Clown Car.

JFK had a shallow wound in soft tissue between his Third Thoracic vertebrae and the upper margin of his right shoulder blade.  SS SA Glen Bennett described seeing the shot, in the location of the bullet holes in the clothes.  

No 6.5mm Full Metal Jacket bullet is going to leave a shallow wound in soft tissue.

The night of the autopsy, Humes & Co. wondered if JFK was hit with a high tech round.  Sadly, the US Gov’t, the Mainstream Media, and the JFKA critical community lack the guts to follow up an obvious lead.

[Cory Santos]

21 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

https://throughtheoswaldwindow.com/articles/dr-david-mantik/

Mantik:  

1. No bullet struck JFK in the back—or in the throat. The Single Bullet Theory is nonsense. The (superficial) back wound was likely caused by metallic shrapnel.

On the subject of JFK’s back wound Mantik and Speer take turns driving the Clown Car.

JFK had a shallow wound in soft tissue between his Third Thoracic vertebrae and the upper margin of his right shoulder blade.  SS SA Glen Bennett described seeing the shot, in the location of the bullet holes in the clothes.  

No 6.5mm Full Metal Jacket bullet is going to leave a shallow wound in soft tissue.

The night of the autopsy, Humes & Co. wondered if JFK was hit with a high tech round.  Sadly, the US Gov’t, the Mainstream Media, and the JFKA critical community lack the guts to follow up an obvious lead.

Cliff!!!   I thought I turned off the WiFi in the pool house.   You turned it on again?   

[Cliff Varnell]

2 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Cliff!!!   I thought I turned off the WiFi in the pool house.   You turned it on again?   

Oh no, no you told me not to, remember?

Had to go down to the Henderson Public Library in disguise so they wouldn’t throw me out like last time.

[Matthew Koch]

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

https://throughtheoswaldwindow.com/articles/dr-david-mantik/

Mantik:  

1. No bullet struck JFK in the back—or in the throat. The Single Bullet Theory is nonsense. The (superficial) back wound was likely caused by metallic shrapnel.

On the subject of JFK’s back wound Mantik and Speer take turns driving the Clown Car.

JFK had a shallow wound in soft tissue between his Third Thoracic vertebrae and the upper margin of his right shoulder blade.  SS SA Glen Bennett described seeing the shot, in the location of the bullet holes in the clothes.  

No 6.5mm Full Metal Jacket bullet is going to leave a shallow wound in soft tissue.

The night of the autopsy, Humes & Co. wondered if JFK was hit with a high tech round.  Sadly, the US Gov’t, the Mainstream Media, and the JFKA critical community lack the guts to follow up an obvious lead.

In Bloody Treason Noel Twyman interviews Gerry Patrick Hemming and in the interview Hemming talks about using an underpowered round meant to leave a bullet that leads back to a suspect using a sabot. Seems like an simpler solution than James Bond theories.. Occums Razor 

" Twyman: What abut sabot bullets? 

Hemming: Well that's what we call a "meat" shot. Putting the shot into the target's back. It's not a lethal shot. If you want a shot that gives you a pristine bullet, that gives it to you. 

Twyman: Does that explain the shallow back wound? Kennedy's shallow back wound? 

Hemming: Yes. And the angle, 44* 

Twyman: From a tall building? 

Hemming: From above. 

Twyman: Yes, not form the School Book Depository.

Hemming: Not likely... they'd of had to shoot through the trees. 

 

Bloody Treason P. 665, 666 

[Cliff Varnell]

39 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

In Bloody Treason Noel Twyman interviews Gerry Patrick Hemming and in the interview Hemming talks about using an underpowered round meant to leave a bullet that leads back to a suspect using a sabot. Seems like an simpler solution than James Bond theories.. Occums Razor 

The first shot hit him in the throat, after which he acted paralyzed.

Occam’s Razor: he acted paralyzed because he WAS paralyzed, consistent with the blood soluble flechettes developed at Fort Detrick for the CIA.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

Edited November 2, 2022 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Wait a minute. Wait just a minute here. The white patch is not in the temporal-parietal area of the skull, and it is certainly not in the same location as the red flap above the ear in the autopsy photos. I don't need to be a medical expert to see that, and to see it clearly. Any expert who has concluded otherwise either had an agenda or did not study the x-rays carefully enough. The white patch is clearly behind the ear, and its posterior edge comes close to the occipital region, so there is no way it is the flap above the ear in the autopsy photos. 

I again refer interested readers to Dr. Mantik's reply to Pat Speers on this matter: JFK Autopsy X-rays: David Mantik vs. Pat Speer (kennedysandking.com)

 

Go back and look at the slide. The wing of bone stretches past the ear and ends before it reaches the far back of the head. Well, where is the white patch? In this exact same location. As far as your disagreement with the exact verbiage used, there's no problem The temporal-parietal is the side of the head--not high on the front (that would be frontal)--and not low on the far back (that would be occipital). 

 

[Michael Griffith]

I would direct our attention to page 12 of Mantik's "JFK Autopsy Materials: A Current Summary," available here. He shows the lateral JFK skull x-ray and has the white patch outlined with a red line and also notes the location of the petrous bone. Here is a good diagram that shows the location of the petrous bone in the temporal bone.

It seems undeniably clear that the white patch is behind/left of the petrous bone (viewer's left), that about half of the white patch is several inches behind/left of the petrous bone, and that part of the white patch extends into the rear parietal region. 

Two points about this: One, the white patch appears to cover part of the parietal area of the "right occipital-parietal/right parietal-occipital" wound that many witnesses described. Two, there is no way that the white patch is the bone flap over the ear seen in the autopsy photos, because most of the white patch is clear well behind/left of the ear.

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I would direct our attention to page 12 of Mantik's "JFK Autopsy Materials: A Current Summary," available here. He shows the lateral JFK skull x-ray and has the white patch outlined with a red line and also notes the location of the petrous bone. Here is a good diagram that shows the location of the petrous bone in the temporal bone.

It seems undeniably clear that the white patch is behind/left of the petrous bone (viewer's left), that about half of the white patch is several inches behind/left of the petrous bone, and that part of the white patch extends into the rear parietal region. 

Two points about this: One, the white patch appears to cover part of the parietal area of the "right occipital-parietal/right parietal-occipital" wound that many witnesses described. Two, there is no way that the white patch is the bone flap over the ear seen in the autopsy photos, because most of the white patch is clear well behind/left of the ear.

 

Look at the slide. The wing of bone indisputably drapes down past the ear, within a small margin of the back of the head. This is exactly what is shown on the x-rays. 

 

[Michael Griffith]

Another problem posed by the white patch is that there no image on the A-P x-ray that even comes close to corresponding to it. The OD measurements show that if that patch is authentic, there should be bone going from the patch to nearly the other side of the skull. 

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/31/2022 at 6:58 PM, Pat Speer said:

While Mantik has told audiences that the wing of bone's being the white spot is "Speer's theory" I can not take credit for it and his claiming it as such is a weaselly argument from authority, IMO. He expects people to believe him as it's his word against mine and he has a neato keeno degree. 

Only it isn't his word against mine...

The "wing" argument was actually proposed long before I first proposed it. 

From chapter 18b at patspeer.com: 

In 1996 Doug Horne showed the x-rays to three outside experts, two of whom commented on the white patch. Forensic Anthropologist Douglas Ubelaker, upon viewing the lateral x-rays, noted "overlapping bone fragments" in the "temporal-parietal region of the lateral x-rays." This is almost certainly a reference to the white area noted by Mantik. More specifically, however, Forensic Radiologist John J. Fitzpatrick, a man with far more expertise on these matters than Mantik, confirmed that "overlapping bone is clearly present in the lateral skull x-rays" and that "the red flap above the ear" in the autopsy photos "equates with the overlapping bone in the lateral skull x-rays."

(Well, I'll be. Although Mantik summarized the findings of Ubelaker and Fitzpatrick in 2013 presentation, he failed to report that they'd both foreshadowed and offered strong support for what he chose to call "Speer's theory." It's hard to believe this was an oversight.)

And they weren't the only ones telling Horne and the ARRB the white patch represented overlapping bone. 

On 10-21-97, Edward Reed, one of the two x-ray techs to assist in the autopsy of President Kennedy, testified before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). When examining the lateral x-rays, Reed noted "The dark spot that I am pointing to right now is a less dense area. There's hardly any bone there. And there's only one side intact. Whereas here, posteriorly, where I'm pointing to now is--the white area--is where the bones overlap."

So no, Michael, it is not I who is pushing silly conclusions at odds with the conclusions of radiology professionals...

Well, I think you are way, way off base here. I honestly can't fathom what you are looking at in the skull x-rays and head photos. First of all, the overlapping bone does not cover the area that is occupied by the white patch. This isn't even a close call. And, good grief, if the overlapping bone corresponds with the red flap above the ear, how in the world can you believe that it constitutes the white patch? 

Have you replied to Dr. Mantik's response to your critique. Here is some of what he says therein:

       Does the overlapping bone (on the lateral X-ray) explain the “White Patch”?

       No, it does not—nor could it even do so in principle. First, these are two distinctly different areas, as should be obvious from the right lateral X-ray—the White Patch is much more posterior than the overlap area. See my image of the White Patch in [i]Assassination Science[/i] 1998, p. 160, or slide 5 in my Dallas lecture, or my Figure 5 just below. . . .

       In my Figure 2, I have identified the external auditory canal, which Speer ignores; that structural feature clearly locates the external ear—without any ambiguity. Speer also ignores the evidence of the AP X-ray (my Figure 1). Notice there how the wing lies far out in space, quite detached from the skull. On the other hand, if the wing had extended far posteriorly (as Speer wants to believe), then some part of it would be seen much more medially in the AP X-ray, but it is not there. This argument is so powerful that little else need be said. But there is more.

       Second, the ODs of these two areas are quite different: on the right lateral X-ray, the mean OD of the white patch (0.625 ±.055) is almost the same as the petrous bone (0.55), whereas a typical OD (1.33) for the overlap site is noticeably higher (than the White Patch), and it does not appear nearly so white to the eye. That visible difference is dramatically obvious in Figure 5 (especially on the right sided image). Speer claims that the White Patch was caused by three overlapping layers of bone. Despite his unrelenting caricature to the contrary, I have always accepted three layers of bone at the overlap site, although I have never emphasized this because no one (before Speer) had offered such a novel explanation for the White Patch.

       Incidentally, the three layers of overlapping bone should be obvious to anyone after viewing the AP X-ray (an image that Speer overlooks). He also argues that, because the ARRB experts (p. 10 and also Chapter 19b, pp. 26-27) noticed such bone overlap, they therefore support his conclusion that the overlap explains the White Patch. But that is simply absurd. . . .

       Third, the White Patch is so dense that whatever physical object it represents must appear somewhere on the AP X-ray film. I made this argument from the very beginning, even at our first press conference in New York City (1993). That transcript is reproduced in [i]Assassination Science[/i] 1998 (p. 155) and warrants a quote here:

              On the frontal [AP] X-ray, such an extremely dense [physical] object should have been as visible as a tyrannosaurus rex in downtown Manhattan at noon. However, when I looked at the frontal X-ray, there was no such beast to be seen.

       No one has even tried to explain this paradox. Even worse, Speer seems oblivious to it. Let’s next focus on the OD issues for overlapping bone, a quantitative exercise that Speer totally neglects. For these JFK skull X-rays, here are the pertinent OD changes (∆ODs) across various layers of bone: one layer = 0.45; two layers = 0.90; three layers = 1.35. The difference for one layer is easily measured at fracture lines; amazingly enough, Speer believes that I ignore these fracture lines (p. 9). If an extra bone layer truly explained the White Patch, then sites just outside the White Patch should yield ODs that are higher by about 0.45 (one layer).

       But that is not the case—on the contrary, the ODs suggest a difference of more than just one layer of bone. Of special interest is the OD over the occiput, at the very back of the skull (very close to the White Patch), where the bone is viewed tangentially: the data there suggest a ∆OD (compared to the White Patch) of not just more than one layer, but actually about two bone layers (i.e., it is much less white). In other words, the White Patch is truly an anomaly (much too white and with ODs that are far too low). It cannot possibly arise simply from overlapping bone. On the other hand, of course, a deliberate superposition of this area in the dark room could easily explain this paradox. That the ODs of the White Patch and the petrous bone are not nearly so identical (to one another) on the left lateral X-ray should also raise some doubt that not all is well in OD land.

       Now recall that three layers of bone yield a ∆OD of 1.35. Since the measured OD (cited above) in the overlap area is already 1.33, the OD without the three layers of bone would be 1.35 + 1.33 = 2.68. The ODs in the maxillary sinuses (mostly air) are 2.89, so this value of 2.68 clearly suggests substantial missing brain in the overlap area. But the site in question (medial to the overlapping bone on the lateral X-ray) lies near the middle of the brain, where the autopsy photographs show no missing brain tissue! ([url=https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf]https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf[/url])