The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail and WC Apologists

[Pat Speer]

41 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

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

More or less where Angel put it. Baden realized that Angel's interpretation was at odds with his own interpretation of the location of the large triangular fragment. So he pretended the Harper fragment actually sprang from the right temple area, which no one but no one takes seriously. 

[Michael Griffith]

17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

More or less where Angel put it. Baden realized that Angel's interpretation was at odds with his own interpretation of the location of the large triangular fragment. So he pretended the Harper fragment actually sprang from the right temple area, which no one but no one takes seriously. 

The only three doctors who actually handled the Harper Fragment all said it was occipital bone. One of those doctors was Dr. A. B. Cairns, who was then the chief pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas. The two other doctors, Harper and Noteboom, were also pathologists. When interviewed about the fragment in 1992, Dr. Noteboom confirmed that the fragment was occipital bone and said he recalled a trace of metal on one edge of the fragment.

I think Dr. Mantik establishes that the Harper Fragment was occipital bone in his new book JFK Assassination Paradoxes. Anyone who claims the Harper Fragment was anything other than occipital bone needs to explain the evidence that Mantik presents. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

On 6/5/2023 at 11:11 AM, Michael Griffith said:

The only three doctors who actually handled the Harper Fragment all said it was occipital bone. One of those doctors was Dr. A. B. Cairns, who was then the chief pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas. The two other doctors, Harper and Noteboom, were also pathologists. When interviewed about the fragment in 1992, Dr. Noteboom confirmed that the fragment was occipital bone and said he recalled a trace of metal on one edge of the fragment.

I think Dr. Mantik establishes that the Harper Fragment was occipital bone in his new book JFK Assassination Paradoxes. Anyone who claims the Harper Fragment was anything other than occipital bone needs to explain the evidence that Mantik presents. 

When one studies images of occipital bones in photos and drawings it's 100% clear the Harper frag is not occipital bone. This was the conclusion, moreover, of Lawrence Angel--who was at that time the top forensic anthropologist in the country, and Joseph Riley, a neuro-anatomist. 

And yes, it's really quite obvious. Yes, even to Mantik. In his book he mused that the frag didn't look like occipital bone because Kennedy's Addison's disease had deformed his skull bones. I think we can agree that that is just desperate. 

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

When one studies images of occipital bones in photos and drawings it's 100% clear the Harper frag is not occipital bone. This was the conclusion, moreover, of Lawrence Angel--who was at that time the top forensic anthropologist in the country, and Joseph Riley, a neuro-anatomist. 

And yes, it's really quite obvious. Yes, even to Mantik. In his book he mused that the frag didn't look like occipital bone because Kennedy's Addison's disease had deformed his skull bones. I think we can agree that that is just desperate. 

 

I just have to say that you are totally out to lunch when it comes to the medical evidence regarding the head wounds. You're not just a little wrong, a little off--you're out in the boondocks. It's baffling. You even think that the most obviously bogus photos among the autopsy photos, i.e., the brain photos, are authentic. You're very good on many other issues, but you're awful when it comes to the head wounds.

Anyway, I repeat: Anyone who claims that the Harper Fragment is not occipital bone needs to deal with the evidence that Dr. Mantik presents on the subject in his book JFK Assassination Paradoxes. He deals with Angel and Riley's placement of the fragment at great length and shows that it is impossible. Have you read the book? Have you answered the evidence he presents therein? And/or, have you read the evidence he presents on the fragment in his book JFK's Head Wounds?

I also repeat the fact that the three pathologists who actually handled the Harper Fragment said it was occipital bone. 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Stu Wexler]

The bone has sutures in it that definitively identify what it is and isn't. See Joe Riley. See Larry Angel. It is Mantik who has to explain that in a credible way. I have not seen it. Pat has that right here.

[Michael Crane]

On 6/7/2023 at 7:38 AM, Michael Griffith said:

I just have to say that you are totally out to lunch when it comes to the medical evidence regarding the head wounds. You're not just a little wrong, a little off--you're out in the boondocks. It's baffling. You even think that the most obviously bogus photos among the autopsy photos, i.e., the brain photos, are authentic. You're very good on many other issues, but you're awful when it comes to the head wounds.

Anyway, I repeat: Anyone who claims that the Harper Fragment is not occipital bone needs to deal with the evidence that Dr. Mantik presents on the subject in his book JFK Assassination Paradoxes. He deals with Angel and Riley's placement of the fragment at great length and shows that it is impossible. Have you read the book? Have you answered the evidence he presents therein? And/or, have you read the evidence he presents on the fragment in his book JFK's Head Wounds?

I also repeat the fact that the three pathologists who actually handled the Harper Fragment said it was occipital bone. 

Looking at the size of the Harper fragment,and the size of the original head wound at Parkland,I would say that it is occipital.Other bone fragments of that size were probably discarded by the plotters.

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

14 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Looking at the size of the Harper fragment,and the size of the original head wound at Parkland,I would say that it is occipital.Others bone fragments of that size were probably discarded by the plotters.

 

The Harper fragment is a 2 1/2 inch triangle, Michael. None of those drawings come close to depicting a 2 inch triangle of bone resting entirely on the occipital bone. The closest would be the top drawing, but that depicts a hole largely on the left side of the skull. How many witnesses saw such a thing? 

None. So, yikes, the eyewitnesses claiming to see a wound on the back of the head simultaneously suggest that the Harper fragment was not occipital bone. 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The Harper fragment is a 2 inch triangle, Michael. None of those drawings come close to depicting a 2 inch triangle of bone resting entirely on the occipital bone. The closest would be the top drawing, but that depicts a hole largely on the left side of the skull. How many witnesses saw such a thing? 

None. So, yikes, the eyewitnesses claiming to see a wound on the back of the head simultaneously suggest that the Harper fragment was not occipital bone. 

And I again repeat the point that the only three doctors, all of whom were pathologists, who actually handled the Harper Fragment said it was occipital bone, and when one of those doctors (Noteboom) was interviewed in 1992, he reaffirmed that conclusion. Looking at pictures is one thing; actually handling the object is quite another. All three of the pathologists who actually handled the fragment said it was occipital bone.

When you produce a response to the evidence that Mantik presents, let me know.

"Claiming to see a wound on the back of the head"??? Are you suggesting that there was no large right-rear head wound, that all those witnesses were mistaken? Since you believe the brain photos are accurate, I guess you must dismiss all the large-right-rear-head-wound witnesses as mistaken, right? And all the doctors, two of them neurosurgeons, who insisted they saw damaged and missing cerebellar tissue were all mistaken, too, right?

[Evan Marshall]

Glaser Safety Slug made by Jack Cannon, an OSS "Old China Hand" and bud of Mitch Werbell.

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

And I again repeat the point that the only three doctors, all of whom were pathologists, who actually handled the Harper Fragment said it was occipital bone, and when one of those doctors (Noteboom) was interviewed in 1992, he reaffirmed that conclusion. Looking at pictures is one thing; actually handling the object is quite another. All three of the pathologists who actually handled the fragment said it was occipital bone.

When you produce a response to the evidence that Mantik presents, let me know.

"Claiming to see a wound on the back of the head"??? Are you suggesting that there was no large right-rear head wound, that all those witnesses were mistaken? Since you believe the brain photos are accurate, I guess you must dismiss all the large-right-rear-head-wound witnesses as mistaken, right? And all the doctors, two of them neurosurgeons, who insisted they saw damaged and missing cerebellar tissue were all mistaken, too, right?

You're cherry-picking, Michael. How many of those claiming they saw a hole on the back of the head said the autopsy photos were fake? Very few. More telling, how many of them placed the wound LOW on the back of the head below the level of the ears? Only a few. And of this few, how many made this claim prior to being shown the so-called McClelland drawing? None, right? 

You really should check out my website. It debunks a lot of crap from both sides of the fence, and presents a lot of FACTS people have chosen to ignore. Here's a goodie. In the early '80's The Boston Globe showed both the back of the head photo and the so-called McClelland drawing to a number of Parkland witnesses. It's been widely reported that most of these witnesses said the autopsy photo did not reflect what they remembered. But unreported until I reported it is that an even greater percentage of these witnesses rejected the accuracy of the so-called McClelland drawing. 

So how did Livingstone and Groden deal with this? They perpetrated a hoax and said ALL of the Parkland witnesses said the McClelland drawing was an accurate depiction of JFK's wounds. This was not true, then, or ever. And yet Groden and many others continue to pretend that the McClelland drawing--which wasn't even drawn by McClelland--is an accurate depiction of JFK's head wound, and was acknowledged as such by most every Parkland witness.

It's a con. 

 

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

And I again repeat the point that the only three doctors, all of whom were pathologists, who actually handled the Harper Fragment said it was occipital bone, and when one of those doctors (Noteboom) was interviewed in 1992, he reaffirmed that conclusion. Looking at pictures is one thing; actually handling the object is quite another. All three of the pathologists who actually handled the fragment said it was occipital bone.

When you produce a response to the evidence that Mantik presents, let me know.

"Claiming to see a wound on the back of the head"??? Are you suggesting that there was no large right-rear head wound, that all those witnesses were mistaken? Since you believe the brain photos are accurate, I guess you must dismiss all the large-right-rear-head-wound witnesses as mistaken, right? And all the doctors, two of them neurosurgeons, who insisted they saw damaged and missing cerebellar tissue were all mistaken, too, right?

How many of these pathologists had a background in skull reconstruction, or skull anatomy? It's a canard that all doctors are experts in anatomy or x-rays, etc? As someone who's spent much of the last two years in hospitals dealing with widely respected doctors, I can assure you that a few hours with an anatomy book or radiology book will make you far more qualified to judge the location of a bone, or the proper placement of a bone fragment an x-ray, than most doctors. 

On the other hand, Angel was a forensic anthropologist, who reconstructed numerous skulls, and Riley was a neuroanatomist, an expert on skull anatomy. Their opinions on a bone fragment would hold more weight than a hundred forensic pathologists.

But we don't need them. All we need are eyes.

 

 

As stated, moreover, Mantik now acknowledges that the Harper fragment bears little resemblance to occipital bone, and has mused that maybe JFK's Addison's disease flattened out the ridges that would otherwise be apparent on the inner aspect of the Harper fragment. Do you believe this? 

If so, well, I feel sorry for you. 

[Michael Griffith]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

How many of these pathologists had a background in skull reconstruction, or skull anatomy? It's a canard that all doctors are experts in anatomy or x-rays, etc? As someone who's spent much of the last two years in hospitals dealing with widely respected doctors, I can assure you that a few hours with an anatomy book or radiology book will make you far more qualified to judge the location of a bone, or the proper placement of a bone fragment an x-ray, than most doctors. 

On the other hand, Angel was a forensic anthropologist, who reconstructed numerous skulls, and Riley was a neuroanatomist, an expert on skull anatomy. Their opinions on a bone fragment would hold more weight than a hundred forensic pathologists.

But we don't need them. All we need are eyes.

 

 

As stated, moreover, Mantik now acknowledges that the Harper fragment bears little resemblance to occipital bone, and has mused that maybe JFK's Addison's disease flattened out the ridges that would otherwise be apparent on the inner aspect of the Harper fragment. Do you believe this? 

If so, well, I feel sorry for you. 

You are again misrepresenting Mantik's views. Here are parts of his analysis of the Harper Fragment in his new book JFK Assassination Paradoxes:

          With John Hunt’s recent, remarkable discovery of the X-ray image of the Harper fragment (in the National Archives) we now know that there was metal at one small site on this bone. The photographs show that this metal was not on the inside, but rather on the outside. If only one headshot is accepted, then that metal debris on the Harper fragment (remember—it’s on the outside) must necessarily derive from the entry that the pathologists identified. Once that is granted, then the Harper fragment itself becomes the missing bone at the rear (or, more likely, just a part of the entire defect), just where the HSCA denied that there was a hole.165 You can see all of this in my reconstructed skull.166. . . . 

          My reconstruction of the Harper fragment, with the lead deposit precisely at the pathologists’ site, may be considered objective proof of their honesty and accuracy on this issue.259 If additional metal fragments were deposited with this shot, they were removed before the official autopsy began.260. . . .

          RR [Randy Robertson] offers no explanation for the lead-like smear on the Harper fragment (Figure 13A). The X-ray of the Harper fragment (which RR showed at the 1995 COPA conference) strongly suggests metallic debris at the precise site of the smear (Figure 13B). On November 21, 1992, on a Palm Springs radio talk show (KPSI), my colleagues and I interviewed one of the Dallas pathologists, Dr. Gerard Noteboom, who confirmed the occipital origin of the Harper fragment. He had actually held the bone, and he also recalled a trace of metal (like a lead smear from a bullet) on one edge of the Harper fragment. His fellow pathologist, Dr. A. B. Cairns, also interpreted this smear as due to a bullet entry. (Since the smear unambiguously lies on the outside, it cannot represent a bullet exit site. 388) On the other hand, if RR were to attribute this smear to a bullet, he could not ascribe it to an entry—because he has already identified that entry on the triangular fragment.389 I have suggested that the smear was caused by the EOP entry, but RR cannot do that—because he places the Harper fragment into the parietal area. So, how exactly did that smear get there—and what does it mean? RR remains silent. . . .

          I offer one important clarification in this critique. After my Dallas lecture I recognized, with some regret, that I had left the audience with a confused picture of the (apparent) site of lead debris on the Harper fragment. Speer gets credit for also noticing this, and the audience has my apologies. The confusion arose from new evidence on the Harper X-ray, discovered by John Hunt. The X-ray showed the metal debris to lie at the opposite pole of the Harper fragment from where I had originally placed it (a placement that had been based solely on the photographs). For my Dallas lecture I showed only a close-up image (slide 19) of the Harper X-ray (courtesy of John Hunt), but I should have shown the entire X-ray. I correct that oversight here. However, if this new site for metal is accepted, Speer’s placement of the Harper fragment (like Riley’s and Angel’s) suffers grievous trauma. . . .

          Of course, I do not accept Angel’s interpretation. Instead, the Harper fragment most likely came from the high occipital area, as I have argued elsewhere. . . .

          According to Angel, the sagittal (i.e., midline, top of the head) suture is visible on the Harper fragment. That suture line helped Angel to locate the Harper fragment near the skull vertex, as shown in my Figure 11. However, based on the Harper X-ray, the lead site then lies just to the left of the skull vertex—and the lead is on the outside of the skull! That is truly bizarre. No one has ever proposed that a bullet entered at this site, yet that is precisely where Angel’s (and Riley’s) placement of the Harper fragment has led them.

          There is even more evidence (in a forthcoming essay) that my placement of the Harper fragment (mostly from the upper occipital area) is correct. However, the bottom line here is this: if one accepts the Harper X-ray evidence, then the Angel location—with lead lying to the left of midline on the outside—cannot possibly be correct. Angel, however, can be forgiven. He was told, as a fait accompli, that the occipital bone was intact, so he had little choice about where to put this bone. Also, even more importantly, he knew nothing about the Harper X-ray, but now everything has changed. . . .

          In this monograph I examine the photographs and X-rays of the Harper fragment (hereafter “HF”) and I list (in Section 6) fifteen independent and self-consistent signs for its origin from JFK’s upper occiput. (pp. 56, 91-92, 150, 194, 210, 211, xi in appendix)

Edited June 9, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You are again misrepresenting Mantik's views. Here are parts of his analysis of the Harper Fragment in his new book JFK Assassination Paradoxes:

          With John Hunt’s recent, remarkable discovery of the X-ray image of the Harper fragment (in the National Archives) we now know that there was metal at one small site on this bone. The photographs show that this metal was not on the inside, but rather on the outside. If only one headshot is accepted, then that metal debris on the Harper fragment (remember—it’s on the outside) must necessarily derive from the entry that the pathologists identified. Once that is granted, then the Harper fragment itself becomes the missing bone at the rear (or, more likely, just a part of the entire defect), just where the HSCA denied that there was a hole.165 You can see all of this in my reconstructed skull.166. . . . 

          My reconstruction of the Harper fragment, with the lead deposit precisely at the pathologists’ site, may be considered objective proof of their honesty and accuracy on this issue.259 If additional metal fragments were deposited with this shot, they were removed before the official autopsy began.260. . . .

          RR [Randy Robertson] offers no explanation for the lead-like smear on the Harper fragment (Figure 13A). The X-ray of the Harper fragment (which RR showed at the 1995 COPA conference) strongly suggests metallic debris at the precise site of the smear (Figure 13B). On November 21, 1992, on a Palm Springs radio talk show (KPSI), my colleagues and I interviewed one of the Dallas pathologists, Dr. Gerard Noteboom, who confirmed the occipital origin of the Harper fragment. He had actually held the bone, and he also recalled a trace of metal (like a lead smear from a bullet) on one edge of the Harper fragment. His fellow pathologist, Dr. A. B. Cairns, also interpreted this smear as due to a bullet entry. (Since the smear unambiguously lies on the outside, it cannot represent a bullet exit site. 388) On the other hand, if RR were to attribute this smear to a bullet, he could not ascribe it to an entry—because he has already identified that entry on the triangular fragment.389 I have suggested that the smear was caused by the EOP entry, but RR cannot do that—because he places the Harper fragment into the parietal area. So, how exactly did that smear get there—and what does it mean? RR remains silent. . . .

          I offer one important clarification in this critique. After my Dallas lecture I recognized, with some regret, that I had left the audience with a confused picture of the (apparent) site of lead debris on the Harper fragment. Speer gets credit for also noticing this, and the audience has my apologies. The confusion arose from new evidence on the Harper X-ray, discovered by John Hunt. The X-ray showed the metal debris to lie at the opposite pole of the Harper fragment from where I had originally placed it (a placement that had been based solely on the photographs). For my Dallas lecture I showed only a close-up image (slide 19) of the Harper X-ray (courtesy of John Hunt), but I should have shown the entire X-ray. I correct that oversight here. However, if this new site for metal is accepted, Speer’s placement of the Harper fragment (like Riley’s and Angel’s) suffers grievous trauma. . . .

          Of course, I do not accept Angel’s interpretation. Instead, the Harper fragment most likely came from the high occipital area, as I have argued elsewhere. . . .

          According to Angel, the sagittal (i.e., midline, top of the head) suture is visible on the Harper fragment. That suture line helped Angel to locate the Harper fragment near the skull vertex, as shown in my Figure 11. However, based on the Harper X-ray, the lead site then lies just to the left of the skull vertex—and the lead is on the outside of the skull! That is truly bizarre. No one has ever proposed that a bullet entered at this site, yet that is precisely where Angel’s (and Riley’s) placement of the Harper fragment has led them.

          There is even more evidence (in a forthcoming essay) that my placement of the Harper fragment (mostly from the upper occipital area) is correct. However, the bottom line here is this: if one accepts the Harper X-ray evidence, then the Angel location—with lead lying to the left of midline on the outside—cannot possibly be correct. Angel, however, can be forgiven. He was told, as a fait accompli, that the occipital bone was intact, so he had little choice about where to put this bone. Also, even more importantly, he knew nothing about the Harper X-ray, but now everything has changed. . . .

          In this monograph I examine the photographs and X-rays of the Harper fragment (hereafter “HF”) and I list (in Section 6) fifteen independent and self-consistent signs for its origin from JFK’s upper occiput. (pp. 56, 91-92, 150, 194, 210, 211, xi in appendix)

Mantik's "new" book is a collection of old essays containing a number of findings he has since abandoned. He corrected his incorrect placement of the smudge on the Harper fragment in 2013, during a "debate" with myself. 

   

P.S. Let me address one of Mantik's points. He writes:

"According to Angel, the sagittal (i.e., midline, top of the head) suture is visible on the Harper fragment. That suture line helped Angel to locate the Harper fragment near the skull vertex, as shown in my Figure 11. However, based on the Harper X-ray, the lead site then lies just to the left of the skull vertex—and the lead is on the outside of the skull! That is truly bizarre. No one has ever proposed that a bullet entered at this site, yet that is precisely where Angel’s (and Riley’s) placement of the Harper fragment has led them."

This is blithering nonsense. The lead fragment is to the left of the skull vertex in Mantik's mistaken orientation for the lead fragment, but near the temple on what he now admits is the proper orientation for the lead. So it's bit of a switcheroo. He admits he's wrong about one point, but then says he's right about another, by citing what he already admitted was false. 

Even more ironic. Initially, Mantik rejected my orientation for the Harper fragment on the skull by claiming no one had noted an entrance by the temple. He then admitted I was correct about the location of the lead on the fragment, but, as we've seen, still pretended the location for the lead in Angel's (and my) orientation meant the lead was left of vertex. He then started proposing there WAS an entrance near the temple, exactly as I'd been proposing for years, but failed to acknowledge that this was consistent with Angel's orientation for the Harper fragment. 

In short, he is desperate to pretend the Harper fragment is occipital, and has actively concealed reasons to believe it is not. 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Mantik's "new" book is a collection of old essays containing a number of findings he has since abandoned. He corrected his incorrect placement of the smudge on the Harper fragment in 2013, during a "debate" with myself. 

Yes, he mentions and explains that correction in his book. I quoted part of comments on the correction. 

Again, when you produce a response to the evidence he presents on the Harper Fragment, please let me know. I notice you did not answer any of the points he made on the subject.

It is worth repeating that you are in a tiny minority of conspiracy theorists who criticize Dr. Mantik's research, whereas it is endorsed by Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Cyril Wecht, Doug Horne, Dr. Michael Chesser, Wallace Milam, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, and Greg Burnham, among many others. 

[Pat Speer]

32 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Yes, he mentions and explains that correction in his book. I quoted part of comments on the correction. 

Again, when you produce a response to the evidence he presents on the Harper Fragment, please let me know. I notice you did not answer any of the points he made on the subject.

It is worth repeating that you are in a tiny minority of conspiracy theorists who criticize Dr. Mantik's research, whereas it is endorsed by Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Cyril Wecht, Doug Horne, Dr. Michael Chesser, Wallace Milam, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, and Greg Burnham, among many others. 

I don't want to get into it, but the list you cite is largely meaningless. Some of them like Mantik and think his research is interesting, but have separated themselves from many if not most of his conclusions. Ironically, I agree with David about the dictabelt and disagree with the conclusions of Don Thomas, which some of these people whole-heartedly support. (Should the point not be obvious, I'm pointing into out that this same list of people would not side with Mantik on numerous other points...)

P.S. You still haven't addressed any of these points...

1. Does the white patch cover Mantik's location for the Harper fragment?  If not, why did most everyone citing Mantik's research claim it did prior to my pointing out that it did not?

2. Does Mantik's orientation for the mystery photo depict a large hole on the LEFT side of the skull? And, if so, why is it okay for him to pretend his orientation is in keeping with eyewitnesses who saw no such hole? 

3. Does Mantik's orientation for the large triangular fragment necessitate a large hole on the front of the head, separate from a hole on the back of the head? And, if so, why didn't the Parkland witnesses notice such a thing? 

4. Seeing as the bulk of the witnesses saw one and only one large hole on the head, doesn't it make a lot more sense to assume the large triangular fragment derived from this hole, as opposed to pretending there was a large hole that nobody saw? 

I could go on for days...

Edited June 9, 2023 by Pat Speer