The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail and WC Apologists

[Pat Speer]

On 5/27/2023 at 3:10 PM, Michael Griffith said:

A few, not many, are corrections based on problems that you noted. 

Microsoft Word - SpeerCritique.docx (themantikview.org)

LOL. I have chapters on a number of unreliable "researchers," including Mantik. If one reads it one will find that many of Mantik's views have changed over the years--some after I'd pointed out his errors--and that many of his statements have been self-contradictory, and just plain bizarre. 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Micah Mileto]

Finck, at the Shaw trial, said that although he thought the Rydberg drawings, and the autopsy report's "slightly above the EOP" measurment, depicted the wound slightly too low, but that "4 inches" was still too high (he consistently used the phrasing "4 inches", so a lone nutter could try arguing that Finck was acknowleging the possibility of 3.9 inches - at least as far as the Shaw trial testimony is concerned).

[Michael Griffith]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

LOL. I have chapters on a number of unreliable "researchers," including Mantik. If one reads it one will find that many of Mantik's views have changed over the years--some after I'd pointed out his errors--and that many of his statements have been self-contradictory, and just plain bizarre. 

Wow. I think you are exaggerating, to put it mildly. I'll just say that you are in a very tiny minority among pro-conspiracy researchers. Most CTs recognize Dr. Mantik's research as not only superb but historic. I think his response to your critique shows that his research is far superior to yours.

 

[Michael Griffith]

It is often overlooked that the Clark Panel said that the fragment trail on the lateral skull x-rays ran parallel with the EOP and was consistent with the fragment trail described in the autopsy report. The panel said the fragments were above “a horizontal plane through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull,” i.e., a horizontal line parallel with the EOP and thus consistent with the autopsy report’s description of “along a line corresponding with a line joining the above-described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge”! 

Even more incredibly and erroneously, and in contradiction to their claim that the high fragment trail was the trail described in the autopsy report, the Clark Panel stated that the high fragment trail lined up with the revised entry site. This is astounding because the revised entry site (aka the cowlick entry site) is about 4 inches higher than the EOP site given in the autopsy report. Moreover, as Dr. David O. Davis informed the HSCA, the high fragment trail is actually about 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick entry site (1 HSCA 201). Dr. Gary Aguilar concurs:

          Therefore, the trail of fragments is 5-cm higher than the “above-mentioned hole” [the cowlick entry site]. And so, if extended posteriorly, the fragment trail does not pass through the “above-mentioned hole,” but 5-cm above it. (https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_3.htm)

So where is the entry site that could explain the fragments in the high fragment trail? Keep in mind that the high fragment trail does not extend to the back of the skull. It is concentrated in the right frontal region and dissipates toward the back of the head, and falls well short of the back of the head. 

And, again, why does the autopsy report say nothing about the high fragment trail? Why does the autopsy report describe a low fragment trail that is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays? Try to fathom how even a first-year medical student could have mistaken a fragment trail near the top of the head for a fragment trail that started several inches lower at the EOP and that ran to a point just above the right eye. 

[Pat Speer]

On 5/30/2023 at 6:00 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Wow. I think you are exaggerating, to put it mildly. I'll just say that you are in a very tiny minority among pro-conspiracy researchers. Most CTs recognize Dr. Mantik's research as not only superb but historic. I think his response to your critique shows that his research is far superior to yours.

 

In 2013, I was invited to "debate" Mantik because some of the most prominent names in research-land wanted to put him on the defensive. I have come to know these people. They don't trust Mantik's research, and were delighted when he was forced to admit some of his mistakes during our "debate."

What you fail to see, I suspect, is that to many Mantik is synonymous with Fetzer. He rose to prominence through Fetzer, and never cut ties with Fetzer. Although he's admitted some of his mistakes, he has never divorced himself from Fetzer's claims the moon landing was fake and the Towers were brought down by laser beams etc. And there's a reason for this. It's because they are two peas in a pod. (With the notable difference that Mantik is basically a gentle person and Fetzer is pretty much a bully.)

[Pat Speer]

On 6/2/2023 at 8:35 AM, Michael Griffith said:

It is often overlooked that the Clark Panel said that the fragment trail on the lateral skull x-rays ran parallel with the EOP and was consistent with the fragment trail described in the autopsy report. The panel said the fragments were above “a horizontal plane through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull,” i.e., a horizontal line parallel with the EOP and thus consistent with the autopsy report’s description of “along a line corresponding with a line joining the above-described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge”! 

Even more incredibly and erroneously, and in contradiction to their claim that the high fragment trail was the trail described in the autopsy report, the Clark Panel stated that the high fragment trail lined up with the revised entry site. This is astounding because the revised entry site (aka the cowlick entry site) is about 4 inches higher than the EOP site given in the autopsy report. Moreover, as Dr. David O. Davis informed the HSCA, the high fragment trail is actually about 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick entry site (1 HSCA 201). Dr. Gary Aguilar concurs:

          Therefore, the trail of fragments is 5-cm higher than the “above-mentioned hole” [the cowlick entry site]. And so, if extended posteriorly, the fragment trail does not pass through the “above-mentioned hole,” but 5-cm above it. (https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_3.htm)

So where is the entry site that could explain the fragments in the high fragment trail? Keep in mind that the high fragment trail does not extend to the back of the skull. It is concentrated in the right frontal region and dissipates toward the back of the head, and falls well short of the back of the head. 

And, again, why does the autopsy report say nothing about the high fragment trail? Why does the autopsy report describe a low fragment trail that is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays? Try to fathom how even a first-year medical student could have mistaken a fragment trail near the top of the head for a fragment trail that started several inches lower at the EOP and that ran to a point just above the right eye. 

Dr. Davis nailed it when he admitted the "trail of fragments" appeared to be on the outside of the skull. It is. I will give credit to Mantik here because eons ago he observed that there was no brain where this "trail" was supposedly located. 

The obvious conclusion is that the bullet broke up on the outside of the skull at the supposed exit. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

In 2013, I was invited to "debate" Mantik because some of the most prominent names in research-land wanted to put him on the defensive. I have come to know these people. They don't trust Mantik's research, and were delighted when he was forced to admit some of his mistakes during our "debate."

What you fail to see, I suspect, is that to many Mantik is synonymous with Fetzer. He rose to prominence through Fetzer, and never cut ties with Fetzer. Although he's admitted some of his mistakes, he has never divorced himself from Fetzer's claims the moon landing was fake and the Towers were brought down by laser beams etc. And there's a reason for this. It's because they are two peas in a pod. (With the notable difference that Mantik is basically a gentle person and Fetzer is pretty much a bully.)

I seriously doubt this, but I will check with him just to be certain. 

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What you fail to see, I suspect, is that to many Mantik is synonymous with Fetzer. He rose to prominence through Fetzer, and never cut ties with Fetzer. Although he's admitted some of his mistakes, he has never divorced himself from Fetzer's claims the moon landing was fake and the Towers were brought down by laser beams etc. And there's a reason for this. It's because they are two peas in a pod. (With the notable difference that Mantik is basically a gentle person and Fetzer is pretty much a bully.)

You are wrong. I got with Dr. Mantik about these claims. He does not believe the Moon landings were faked, and he has no idea how or why you think otherwise. He said, "In fact, subsequent high-resolution images of the Moon have identified the landing site. Why on earth would Pat invent such nonsense?"

As for 9/11, he said he is open to the possibility of controlled demolitions but stressed that he has done no research on the subject and is not an expert on the matter. He also said he does not believe that a missile hit the Pentagon. 

[Gerry Down]

On 6/2/2023 at 6:09 PM, Pat Speer said:

Dr. Davis nailed it when he admitted the "trail of fragments" appeared to be on the outside of the skull. It is. I will give credit to Mantik here because eons ago he observed that there was no brain where this "trail" was supposedly location. 

The obvious conclusion is that the bullet broke up on the outside of the skull at the supposed exit. 

Interesting.

Is it possible the trail of fragments is adhering to the inner surface of the scalp and we dont know what way that flap of scalp is positioned so it could be distorting the original position of the trail of fragments which may have been extending from the EOP site just like the autopsy doctors said?

[Pat Speer]

On 6/2/2023 at 1:38 PM, Michael Griffith said:

You are wrong. I got with Dr. Mantik about these claims. He does not believe the Moon landings were faked, and he has no idea how or why you think otherwise. He said, "In fact, subsequent high-resolution images of the Moon have identified the landing site. Why on earth would Pat invent such nonsense?"

As for 9/11, he said he is open to the possibility of controlled demolitions but stressed that he has done no research on the subject and is not an expert on the matter. He also said he does not believe that a missile hit the Pentagon. 

If you could find me a single article in which he separates himself from Fetzer and says Fetzer was wrong about the moon landings, Z-film alteration, 9/11, etc, I would be surprised. 

If you go back through this forum you will find a pattern... Fetzer would claim Mantik was the top researcher blah blah blah and then claim Mantik said x. I would then correct him and say "No, that's not what Mantik says." He would then check with Mantik and Mantik would tell him I was right. He would then make another claim about Mantik that just wasn't true. 

And this wasn't entirely Fetzer's fault. Mantik had allowed a lot of people to think things, that he would later claim was untrue. The classic example is the white spot apparent on the x-rays. Numerous writers cited Mantik and claimed this spot covered up a hole on the back of the head from where the Harper fragment had been dislodged. The problem was that this white spot did not reach the back of the head where Mantik claimed the Harper fragment had once resided, and that there was no missing skull in Mantik's analysis underlying the white spot. So Mantik changed his conclusion to be that the white spot was inserted to conceal missing brain, not skull. But this made no sense to some of his biggest supporters. So they kept claiming it concealed the former location of the Harper fragment. This is documented ad nauseam on my website. 

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

If you could find me a single article in which he separates himself from Fetzer and says Fetzer was wrong about the moon landings, Z-film alteration, 9/11, etc, I would be surprised. 

If you go back through this forum you will find a pattern... Fetzer would claim Mantik was the top researcher blah blah blah and then claim Mantik said x. I would then correct him and say "No, that's not what Mantik says." He would then check with Mantik and Mantik would tell him I was right. He would then make another claim about Mantik that just wasn't true. 

And this wasn't entirely Fetzer's fault. Mantik had allowed a lot of people to think things, that he would later claim was untrue. The classic example is the white spot apparent on the x-rays. Numerous writers cited Mantik and claimed this spot covered up a hole on the back of the head from where the Harper fragment had been dislodged. The problem was that this white spot did not reach the back of the head where Mantik claimed the Harper fragment had once resided, and that there was no missing skull in Mantik's analysis underlying the white spot. So Mantik changed his conclusion to be that the white spot was inserted to conceal missing brain, not skull. But this made no sense to some of his biggest supporters. So they kept claiming it concealed the former location of the Harper fragment. This is documented ad nauseam on my website. 

Now you're shifting the goal posts. Plenty of serious, credible researchers believe that the Z film was altered. It's unreasonable, not to mention a bit shady, to lump that view in with denying the Moon landings and with 9/11 Truther stuff.

Let's say this: How about if you find me a single article where Mantik has said the Moon landings were faked or where he has endorsed the 9/11 Truther claims? We both know that no such article exists. It is vacuous logic to say, "If he hasn't publicly rejected those views, he must agree with them."

As for your renewed repetition of Mantik's revisions regarding the Harper fragment and the white spot, his willingness to correct his views is a testament to his honesty and objectivity.

I will just again note that you are in a very tiny minority of WC critics who reject most or all of Mantik's historic research. I think anyone who reads your critique of his research and then reads his response to your critique will see that his research on the autopsy x-rays and photos is far superior to yours. The list of experts who have endorsed his OD-based analysis of the skull x-rays and/or his books includes Dr. Arthur Haas (former chief of medical physics at Kodak), Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Greg Henkelmann (another radiation oncologist), and Dr. Cyril Wecht.

By the way, Dr. Henkelmann says the following in his endorsement of Dr. Mantik’s book JFK’s Head Wounds:

          Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. To reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology.

And, just FYI, here are some of Dr. Mantik’s peer-reviewed, published medical research articles:

“Proton Radiation for Treatment of Cancer of the Oropharynx: Early Experience at Loma Linda University Medical Center using a Concomitant Boost Technique,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. (Proton radiation for treatment of cancer of the oropharynx: Early experience at Loma Linda University Medical Center using a concomitant boost technique | Request PDF (researchgate.net))

“Hyperthermia and Radiation In Vivo: Effect of 2-Deoxy-D-Glucose.” (Hyperthermia and radiation in vivo: Effect of 2-deoxy-D-glucose | Request PDF (researchgate.net))

“Mouse Neoplasia and Immunity: Effects of Radiation, Hyperthermia, 2-Deoxy-D-Glucose, and Corynebacterium Parvum.” (Mouse Neoplasia and Immunity: Effects of Radiation, Hyperthermia, 2-deoxy-D-glucose, and Corynebacterium parvum | Request PDF (researchgate.net))

[Charles Blackmon]

32 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Plenty of serious, credible researchers believe that the Z film was altered. 

 

There are strong arguments scattered throughout the EF that frames were likely removed from the Z-film (1) near the beginning to remove the turn onto Elm St, and (2.) right before the fatal head shot, when the limo came to a near halt 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Charles Blackmon said:

There are strong arguments scattered throughout the EF that frames were likely removed from the Z-film (1) near the beginning to remove the turn onto Elm St, and (2.) right before the fatal head shot, when the limo came to a near halt 

Mantik's "contribution" to Z-film analysis was his 'discovery" Mary Moorman was added onto the film in a location where she never stood. This was rejected by Moorman herself and debunked by Tink Thompson on this forum. Anyone who thinks Mantik's contributions to the JFK case, beyond the medical evidence, are taken seriously...,hasn't been paying attention. 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

 

I will just again note that you are in a very tiny minority of WC critics who reject most or all of Mantik's historic research. I think anyone who reads your critique of his research and then reads his response to your critique will see that his research on the autopsy x-rays and photos is far superior to yours. The list of experts who have endorsed his OD-based analysis of the skull x-rays and/or his books includes Dr. Arthur Haas (former chief of medical physics at Kodak), Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Greg Henkelmann (another radiation oncologist), and Dr. Cyril Wecht.

 

Ok. It's clear you've never read my chapter on Fetzer, White and Mantik. Mantik has never countered most of what is presented within--because most of what is presented within is Mantik's own ever-shifting claims and statements. 

You should also be aware that he later admitted he was wrong about some of what he presented in his "critique" of my website. 

Most tellingly, he was forced to concede that his interpretation of the Harper fragment x-ray was incorrect and that I was 100% correct in my interpretation. 

[Gerry Down]

20 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Ok. It's clear you've never read my chapter on Fetzer, White and Mantik. Mantik has never countered most of what is presented within--because most of what is presented within is Mantik's own ever-shifting claims and statements. 

You should also be aware that he later admitted he was wrong about some of what he presented in his "critique" of my website. 

Most tellingly, he was forced to concede that his interpretation of the Harper fragment x-ray was incorrect and that I was 100% correct in my interpretation. 

So you think the harper fragment is from the top of the skull, more or less where the HSCA put it?