The Three Morticians, Photographer, and Photo Technician Who Saw the Large Back-of-Head Wound: All "Mistaken"?

[Greg Burnham]

One big difference between you and David is this: When David makes a mistake he admits it. For some reason you keep harping on the same error, that he already acknowledged, as if he was supposed to be 100% infallible 100% of the time. Now, back to the matter at hand. Please show your work. Ya know, that pesky math stuff. Specifically could you show your optical densitometry readings for comparison purposes?

[Keven Hofeling]

On 2/1/2024 at 7:15 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Keven, may I ask what is it you are after with respect to Pat Speer? Is it simply about wanting him to clean up some wording about McClelland and a few others, a style reform? Or do you wish to shut down his arguments from having a place on the table in this forum and in wider discussion? 

As I understand it the heated controversies over the medical and autopsy come about over apparent conflicts in data and different attempts to resolve and interpret those. 

As I understand it Pat's present position is not that there was no gaping wound visible in the back of the head. But that there was some gaping wound visible toward the top of and/or to the right of the back of the head (from a gaping wound that was on the right of the head extending also on to the back), that is covered up in the BOH photo by the autopsists having lifted a flap of scalp up in that photo, giving the illusion of no visible gaping wound in the back of the head when in fact there was gaping wound underneath some scalp in an upper part of the back of the head in those photos.

That was autopsist Boswell's own testimony as to how that BOH photo happened, and Boswell identified himself as one of the hands in that photo. Do you seek to make it illegitimate for anyone on this forum to argue in favor of some form of that autopsist's own explanation? Yes? No?

I realize you do not accept that explanation and you give your reasons and have your views, I understand that. Virtually everyone understands at this point that that there are missing photos, some spinning of interpretation by the official bodies, etc. on that autopsy of which the kindest characterization described from all quarters is "botched". That may or may not include actual photo and x-ray alteration too, which is disputed and argued. 

The question is whether you are trying to make illegitimate any place for discussion and/or argument in favor of e.g. autopsist Boswell's own explanation for the BOH photo. 

Are you trying to shut down Pat Speer? 

This is looking like a vendetta, of trying to shut down Pat Speer and his arguments. If that is not correct could you clarify?

Do you seriously believe Pat is being knowingly wilfully evil and dishonest? (That notion is truly absurd.) As opposed to simply (in your view) wrong and bullheaded?

In the academic world I have seen a lot of ideas in my field which I know full well are wrong from academics being bullheaded. (On rare occasions I am afflicted with bullheadedness myself. 🙂 ) I have learned to never underestimate how attached academics can get to ideas once they have committed themselves in print. This is the individualized form of the larger general phenomenon of scholarly conservatism, by which is not meant anything to do with political orientation, but the difficulty in overturning established ideas and ways of thinking once entrenched by simple mere citation of opposing facts.   

All I can say is if your wish is to see Pat Speer's work silenced, and you were to succeed in that, it would be a loss, and many more good minds than just Pat's would be lost to this forum. And if that is not your purpose I hope you would clarify that. 

 

Quote

"Keven, may I ask what is it you are after with respect to Pat Speer? Is it simply about wanting him to clean up some wording about McClelland and a few others, a style reform? Or do you wish to shut down his arguments from having a place on the table in this forum and in wider discussion?"

You may as well have written: Keven, may I ask what is it you are after with respect to [the flat earthers]? Is it simply about wanting [them] to clean up some wording about [the earth being flat], a style reform? Or do you wish to shut down his arguments from having a place on the table in this forum and in wider discussion?

It is generally really no concern to me what the flat earthers do with their arguments, and I suffer from no illusions about my ability to influence their views. What I really care about is the marketplace of ideas, and the availability of sound and valid information about those ideas for those assessing the merits of competing ideas and the supporting evidence for those ideas. Jeffersonian Democratic Theory, influenced by the ideals of the enlightenment, on which it was intended that the American system of governance should be based, held that full knowledge leads to right action, and that without full knowledge, right action is impossible.

Propaganda and sophistry are incompatible with right action, and with an effective presentation of valid and sound evidence, the full knowledge necessary to discredit propaganda and sophistry may be acquired, thus allowing that right action may prevail over the darkness of inequity and injustice.

Therefore, in my view, and the views of many others, flat earthers and the enablers of political assassinations (and associated obstruction of justice) are incompatible with a free and equitable society, and conscientious citizens should consider it a duty to vigorously oppose their influence upon the marketplace of ideas.

Quote

"As I understand it the heated controversies over the medical and autopsy come about over apparent conflicts in data and different attempts to resolve and interpret those."

You may as well have written: As I understand it the heated controversies over the [question of whether the earth is flat or not due to] apparent conflicts in data and different attempts to resolve and interpret those. 

Personally, I don't concern myself so much with ideas that can be feasibly argued one way or the other, my concern is with facts and the evidence that supports those facts. I have found that flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations (and associated obstruction of justice) by necessity must misrepresent and distort the supporting evidence for the unsound and invalid beliefs that they advocate, and consistent with my belief that all conscientious citizens have an ethical duty to challenge and refute such distortions and misrepresentations, I conduct myself accordingly.

Quote

"As I understand it Pat's present position is not that there was no gaping wound visible in the back of the head. But that there was some gaping wound visible toward the top of and/or to the right of the back of the head (from a gaping wound that was on the right of the head extending also on to the back), that is covered up in the BOH photo by the autopsists having lifted a flap of scalp up in that photo, giving the illusion of no visible gaping wound in the back of the head when in fact there was gaping wound underneath some scalp in an upper part of the back of the head in those photos."

You may as well have written: As I understand it Pat's present position is not that [the earth is as flat as a pancake]. But that [it is flat with mountainous terrain and valleys that make for the illusion that the earth is a sphere] when in fact [the earth is generally flat only with peaks and valleys that the governments of the world are misrepresenting as being spherical].

As set forth above, I am not concerned about the existence of the baseless and irrational arguments of the flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations. What matters to me is the accessibility of competing reliable facts and evidence in the marketplace of ideas. It is important to me to fulfill my duty to vigorously oppose their impact upon others who do not suffer from the same pathology, or delusions, or whatever it may be, of those who seek to lead them away from trustworthy knowledge. 

My standard for distinguishing truth from falsehoods is based on whether I could convince a jury of my peers of the facts in question, and I operate as if those engaging in the marketplace of ideas are part of that jury of my peers.

Quote

"That was autopsist Boswell's own testimony as to how that BOH photo happened, and Boswell identified himself as one of the hands in that photo. Do you seek to make it illegitimate for anyone on this forum to argue in favor of some form of that autopsist's own explanation? Yes? No?"

You may as well have written: That was [the testimony of Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who lived in the 6th century BC, that the earth is a flat, disk-like shape]. Do you seek to make it illegitimate for anyone on this forum to argue in favor of some form of [the explanations of Pythagorus and more contemporary flat-earthers that the earth is flat]? Yes? No?

No, I do not aim to make it "illegitimate" for the flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons to advocate their beliefs. I am confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions.

Quote

"I realize you do not accept that explanation and you give your reasons and have your views, I understand that. Virtually everyone understands at this point that that there are missing photos, some spinning of interpretation by the official bodies, etc. on that autopsy of which the kindest characterization described from all quarters is "botched". That may or may not include actual photo and x-ray alteration too, which is disputed and argued." 

You may as well have written: I realize you do not accept that explanation and you give your reasons and have your views, I understand that. Virtually everyone understands at this point that that there are [huge discrepancies in the evidence that the earth is flat, such as sunrises, sunsets, eclipses and footage of a spherical earth allegedly made by satellites and the like], all of which is disputed and argued. 

Yes, you are, it appears to me, describing the marketplace of ideas, and the manner in which fraudulent and invalid evidence is discredited within that framework.

Quote

"The question is whether you are trying to make illegitimate any place for discussion and/or argument in favor of e.g. autopsist Boswell's own explanation for the BOH photo."

You may as well have written: The question is whether you are trying to make illegitimate any place for discussion and/or argument in favor of e.g. [the flat earthers own explanations that the earth is flat]. 

No, as set forth above, I am not attempting "to make [it] illegitimate" for flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons to advocate their beliefs. I am fully confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions.

Quote

"Are you trying to shut down Pat Speer?"

You may as well have written: Are you trying to shut down [the flat earthers]?

No, I am not "trying to shut down" flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons. I am fully confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions.

What matters to me is the accessibility of competing reliable facts and evidence in the marketplace of ideas. It is important to me to fulfill my duty to vigorously oppose their impact upon others who do not suffer from the same pathology, or delusions, or whatever it may be, of those who seek to lead them away from trustworthy knowledge. 

Quote

"This is looking like a vendetta, of trying to shut down Pat Speer and his arguments. If that is not correct could you clarify?"

You may as well have written: This is looking like a vendetta, of trying to shut down [the flat earthers and their] arguments. If that is not correct could you clarify?

No, there is a distinction between holding a "vendetta" and "trying to shut down" flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons, and being committed to discrediting their baseless and unsound ideas and supporting evidence in the marketplace of ideas.  

Quote

"Do you seriously believe Pat is being knowingly wilfully evil and dishonest? (That notion is truly absurd.) As opposed to simply (in your view) wrong and bullheaded?"

You may as well have written: Do you seriously believe [the flat earthers are] being knowingly wilfully evil and dishonest? (That notion is truly absurd.) As opposed to simply (in your view) wrong and bullheaded?

In my experience, it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain the actual motives and intentions of flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other varieties of irrational persons. I strongly suspect that there are often pathological, or concealed/covert operational explanations for what you describe below as "bullheadedness." When covert operational activities are involved, and they often are when the subject matter involves questions like the flat earth and the true culprits and accessories of political assassinations, I would characterize that as indeed being "willfully evil and dishonest."  In such cases, the operatives are unlikely to ever reveal the details of their assignments.

Quote

"In the academic world I have seen a lot of ideas in my field which I know full well are wrong from academics being bullheaded. (On rare occasions I am afflicted with bullheadedness myself.  ) I have learned to never underestimate how attached academics can get to ideas once they have committed themselves in print. This is the individualized form of the larger general phenomenon of scholarly conservatism, by which is not meant anything to do with political orientation, but the difficulty in overturning established ideas and ways of thinking once entrenched by simple mere citation of opposing facts."

 

Yes, I am indeed familiar with cases in which scholars have become deeply entrenched in their published work and are dedicated to protecting their territory. What you are describing is associated with the phenomenon referred to as "paradigm shifts" by Professor Thomas Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). However, I would like to differentiate that from situations involving flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals.

 

It does happen, as evidenced by the example of Professor Cass Sunstein, who authored the book Conspiracy Theories in 2008 and was subsequently appointed by President Obama as his propaganda czar, providing intelligence agencies with a blueprint for conducting counterintelligence operations against researchers working to expose the crimes of those intelligence agencies. However, when conspiracy researchers -- of the type I label as "honest brokers" -- later confronted Sunstein about his counterintelligence activities, Sunstein attempted to deny and distance himself from such operations in an attempt to preserve his integrity as an academic.

 

In my view, flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals are seldom professionals with credentials. While there are indeed many credentialed professionals who are covert intelligence assets, these professionals are generally too concerned about safeguarding their credentials and reputations to engage in high-profile intelligence activities such as internet counterintelligence operations. On the contrary, flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals are more frequently individuals involved in counterintelligence activities due to a lack of professional credentials and esteemed academic positions, attempting to compensate for these inadequacies.

Quote

"All I can say is if your wish is to see Pat Speer's work silenced, and you were to succeed in that, it would be a loss, and many more good minds than just Pat's would be lost to this forum. And if that is not your purpose I hope you would clarify that."

You may as well have written: All I can say is if your wish is to see [the flat earther's] work silenced, and you were to succeed in that, it would be a loss, and many more good minds than just [those of the flat earthers] would be lost to this forum. And if that is not your purpose I hope you would clarify that. 

I completely disagree with your assessment of the value of the distortions and propaganda of the flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals, but I would fiercely defend and uphold your right to hold and express that opinion, even though I strongly oppose it.

Edited February 2 by Keven Hofeling

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

You may as well have written: Keven, may I ask what is it you are after with respect to [the flat earthers]? Is it simply about wanting [them] to clean up some wording about [the earth being flat], a style reform? Or do you wish to shut down his arguments from having a place on the table in this forum and in wider discussion?

It is generally really no concern to me what the flat earthers do with their arguments, and I suffer from no illusions about my ability to influence their views. What I really care about is the marketplace of ideas, and the availability of sound and valid information about those ideas for those assessing the merits of competing ideas and the supporting evidence for those ideas. Jeffersonian Democratic Theory, influenced by the ideals of the enlightenment, on which it was intended that the American system of governance should be based, held that full knowledge leads to right action, and that without full knowledge, right action is impossible.

Propaganda and sophistry are incompatible with right action, and with an effective presentation of valid and sound evidence, the full knowledge necessary to discredit propaganda and sophistry may be acquired, thus allowing that right action may prevail over the darkness of inequity and injustice.

Therefore, in my view, and the views of many others, flat earthers and the enablers of political assassinations (and associated obstruction of justice) are incompatible with a free and equitable society, and conscientious citizens should consider it a duty to vigorously oppose their influence upon the marketplace of ideas.

You may as well have written: As I understand it the heated controversies over the [question of whether the earth is flat or not due to] apparent conflicts in data and different attempts to resolve and interpret those. 

Personally, I don't concern myself so much with ideas that can be feasibly argued one way or the other, my concern is with facts and the evidence that supports those facts. I have found that flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations (and associated obstruction of justice) by necessity must misrepresent and distort the supporting evidence for the unsound and invalid beliefs that they advocate, and consistent with my belief that all conscientious citizens have an ethical duty to challenge and refute such distortions and misrepresentations, I conduct myself accordingly.

You may as well have written: As I understand it Pat's present position is not that [the earth is as flat as a pancake]. But that [it is flat with mountainous terrain and valleys that make for the illusion that the earth is a sphere] when in fact [the earth is generally flat only with peaks and valleys that the governments of the world are misrepresenting as being spherical].

As set forth above, I am not concerned about the existence of the baseless and irrational arguments of the flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations. What matters to me is the accessibility of competing reliable facts and evidence in the marketplace of ideas. It is important to me to fulfill my duty to vigorously oppose their impact upon others who do not suffer from the same pathology, or delusions, or whatever it may be, of those who seek to lead them away from trustworthy knowledge. 

My standard for distinguishing truth from falsehoods is based on whether I could convince a jury of my peers of the facts in question, and I operate as if those engaging in the marketplace of ideas are part of that jury of my peers.

You may as well have written: That was [the testimony of Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who lived in the 6th century BC, that the earth is a flat, disk-like shape]. Do you seek to make it illegitimate for anyone on this forum to argue in favor of some form of [the explanations of Pythagorus and more contemporary flat-earthers that the earth is flat]? Yes? No?

No, I do not aim to make it "illegitimate" for the flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons to advocate their beliefs. I am confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions.

You may as well have written: I realize you do not accept that explanation and you give your reasons and have your views, I understand that. Virtually everyone understands at this point that that there are [huge discrepancies in the evidence that the earth is flat, such as sunrises, sunsets, eclipses and footage of a spherical earth allegedly made by satellites and the like], all of which is disputed and argued. 

Yes, you are, it appears to me, describing the marketplace of ideas, and the manner in which fraudulent and invalid evidence is discredited within that framework.

You may as well have written: The question is whether you are trying to make illegitimate any place for discussion and/or argument in favor of e.g. [the flat earthers own explanations that the earth is flat]. 

No, as set forth above, I am not attempting "to make [it] illegitimate" for flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons to advocate their beliefs. I am fully confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions.

You may as well have written: Are you trying to shut down [the flat earthers]?

No, I am not "trying to shut down" flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons. I am fully confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions.

What matters to me is the accessibility of competing reliable facts and evidence in the marketplace of ideas. It is important to me to fulfill my duty to vigorously oppose their impact upon others who do not suffer from the same pathology, or delusions, or whatever it may be, of those who seek to lead them away from trustworthy knowledge. 

You may as well have written: This is looking like a vendetta, of trying to shut down [the flat earthers and their] arguments. If that is not correct could you clarify?

No, there is a distinction between holding a "vendetta" and "trying to shut down" flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons, and being committed to discrediting their baseless and unsound ideas and supporting evidence in the marketplace of ideas.  

You may as well have written: Do you seriously believe [the flat earthers are] being knowingly wilfully evil and dishonest? (That notion is truly absurd.) As opposed to simply (in your view) wrong and bullheaded?

In my experience, it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain the actual motives and intentions of flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other varieties of irrational persons. I strongly suspect that there are often pathological, or concealed/covert operational explanations for what you describe below as "bullheadedness." When covert operational activities are involved, and they often are when the subject matter involves questions like the flat earth and the true culprits and accessories of political assassinations, I would characterize that as indeed being "willfully evil and dishonest."  In such cases, the operatives are unlikely to ever reveal the details of their assignments.

 

Yes, I am indeed familiar with cases in which scholars have become deeply entrenched in their published work and are dedicated to protecting their territory. What you are describing is associated with the phenomenon referred to as "paradigm shifts" by Professor Thomas Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). However, I would like to differentiate that from situations involving flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals.

 

It does happen, as evidenced by the example of Professor Cass Sunstein, who authored the book Conspiracy Theories in 2008 and was subsequently appointed by President Obama as his propaganda czar, providing intelligence agencies with a blueprint for conducting counterintelligence operations against researchers working to expose the crimes of those intelligence agencies. However, when conspiracy researchers -- of the type I label as "honest brokers" -- later confronted Sunstein about his counterintelligence activities, Sunstein attempted to deny and distance himself from such operations in an attempt to preserve his integrity as an academic.

 

In my view, flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals are seldom professionals with credentials. While there are indeed many credentialed professionals who are covert intelligence assets, these professionals are generally too concerned about safeguarding their credentials and reputations to engage in high-profile intelligence activities such as internet counterintelligence operations. On the contrary, flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals are more frequently individuals involved in counterintelligence activities due to a lack of professional credentials and esteemed academic positions, attempting to compensate for these inadequacies.

You may as well have written: All I can say is if your wish is to see [the flat earther's] work silenced, and you were to succeed in that, it would be a loss, and many more good minds than just [those of the flat earthers] would be lost to this forum. And if that is not your purpose I hope you would clarify that. 

I completely disagree with your assessment of the value of the distortions and propaganda of the flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals, but I would fiercely defend and uphold your right to hold and express that opinion, even though I strongly oppose it.

Keven, I agree with all of your condemnation of flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations. 

That, however, is not the issue. The issue is Pat Speer's research on the JFK assassination. 

Your hypnotic repetition-mantra substitution of "...enablers of political assassinations" for the topic at issue, Pat Speer's expression of his research, is absolutely shameful smear rhetoric.

Your lengthy hypnotic-like mantra only has force if your unexpressed premise is accepted that Pat Speer is analogous to flat-earth argument or "enablers of political assassinations". Are you saying that?  

In fact, pursuant to a moderator's stated policy, in which any forum member can request that posts which violate forum rules be taken down: You have attempted to publicly shame a fellow researcher. And you have misrepresented me (your "you might as well have said" hypnotic rephrasings of what I was saying). Both of these counts violate forum rules.

I request you remove the above post.

Pat Speer does not deserve this. 

He's either right, stupid, or smart but mistaken (and bullheaded), on any specific argument, as the case may be, as are we all. But he is not analogous to flat earth argument or "enablers of political assassinations".

You are really out of line.

To the moderators, I strongly protest this rhetoric used of one of the most productive and sensible researchers on this forum (present issue of the autopsy interpretation issues to one side).

[Keven Hofeling]

16 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Keven, I agree with all of your condemnation of flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations. 

That, however, is not the issue. The issue is Pat Speer's research on the JFK assassination. 

Your hypnotic repetition-mantra substitution of "...enablers of political assassinations" for the topic at issue, Pat Speer's expression of his research, is absolutely shameful smear rhetoric.

Your lengthy hypnotic-like mantra only has force if your unexpressed premise is accepted that Pat Speer is analogous to flat-earth argument or "enablers of political assassinations". Are you saying that?  

In fact, pursuant to a moderator's stated policy, in which any forum member can request that posts which violate forum rules be taken down: You have attempted to publicly shame a fellow researcher. And you have misrepresented me (your "you might as well have said" hypnotic rephrasings of what I was saying). Both of these counts violate forum rules.

I request you remove the above post.

Pat Speer does not deserve this. 

He's either right, stupid, or smart but mistaken (and bullheaded), on any specific argument, as the case may be, as are we all. But he is not analogous to flat earth argument or "enablers of political assassinations".

You are really out of line.

To the moderators, I strongly protest this rhetoric used of one of the most productive and sensible researchers on this forum (present issue of the autopsy interpretation issues to one side).

What specifically violates forum rules, Mr. Doudna?

Please give me a quote or quotes of what I wrote that violates forum rules, and precisely which rule it violates. It's not like I accused Pat Speer or you of being a "stalker," or anything like that, now is it?

Pat Speer is a big boy, and can respond to any comments I directed to him all by himself, don't you think?

Oh, that's right. I didn't direct any comments to Pat Speer. And I didn't direct any insulting or offensive comments to you either, did I?

Now who is the one trying to censor who, Mr. Doudna?

Edited February 3 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

12 hours ago, Greg Burnham said:

One big difference between you and David is this: When David makes a mistake he admits it. For some reason you keep harping on the same error, that he already acknowledged, as if he was supposed to be 100% infallible 100% of the time. Now, back to the matter at hand. Please show your work. Ya know, that pesky math stuff. Specifically could you show your optical densitometry readings for comparison purposes?

Respectfully, Greg, David has made a lot of mistakes he has never admitted. He only admitted he was wrong about the Harper fragment x-ray because he was worried I would bring it up at the Pittsburgh conference, and make him look bad in front of Cyril. 

BTW, Are you still pretending that you wrote that attack piece on me on your website? 

Edited February 3 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, Greg Burnham said:

One big difference between you and David [Mantik] is this: When David makes a mistake he admits it. For some reason you keep harping on the same error, that he already acknowledged, as if he was supposed to be 100% infallible 100% of the time. Now, back to the matter at hand. Please show your work. Ya know, that pesky math stuff. Specifically could you show your optical densitometry readings for comparison purposes?

You are spot on. 

Pat's response to Dr. Mantik's historic OD measurements is specious and amateurish, and a gift to WC apologists (they frequently cite Pat's anti-alteration arguments in the JFK Assassination Forum). Dr. Michael Chesser did his own OD measurements, and his measurements support Dr. Mantik's, but Pat brushes this aside as meaningless. Pat's refusal to accept this historic scientific evidence is both baffling and discrediting.

Similarly, Pat's criticism of Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment in the occiput reflects his refusal to face facts that contradict his rigid ideological opposition to film and x-ray alteration. He waves aside the fact that the only three pathologists who actually handled the Harper fragment all said it was occipital bone, even though Dr. Ebersole told the HSCA that one of the late-arriving skull fragments was occipital bone. 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

You are spot on. 

Pat's response to Dr. Mantik's historic OD measurements is specious and amateurish, and a gift to WC apologists (they frequently cite Pat's anti-alteration arguments in the JFK Assassination Forum). Dr. Michael Chesser did his own OD measurements, and his measurements support Dr. Mantik's, but Pat brushes this aside as meaningless. Pat's refusal to accept this historic scientific evidence is both baffling and discrediting.

Similarly, Pat's criticism of Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment in the occiput reflects his refusal to face facts that contradict his rigid ideological opposition to film and x-ray alteration. He waves aside the fact that the only three pathologists who actually handled the Harper fragment all said it was occipital bone, even though Dr. Ebersole told the HSCA that one of the late-arriving skull fragments was occipital bone. 

This is just pathetic. Why all this bullying to defend someone who can, and has, on numerous occasions, defended himself? I have not gone after him for a decade or so, except as responses to people insisting I should kow-tow to his nonsense. We had a cease-fire. What has spurred this recent series of attacks?  

David acknowledges that Angel, Riley, and numerous others are correct--that the Harper fragment bears little resemblance to occipital bone in the location where he places it. But he offers up the possibility JFK's skull bones were deformed by his Addison's disease as a get-around. 

1. Where is his data? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, right? But here he offers no evidence beyond an unsupported maybe. As stated, even if one believes his ridiculous claim there is a giant hole on the back of the head apparent on the x-rays, we have little reason to believe the Harper fragment came from this hole. The guesses of three doctors at a glance do not compare to the conclusions of experts, and the obvious conclusion--shared by Mantik--that the bone does not resemble occipital bone. When one realizes both that newspapers reported that the back of the head was missing, and that Harper had found the fragment in a location he incorrectly believed was behind the President's location when shot, well, it's not hard to see how they could make this mistake. But there is no data or detailed analysis of the fragment in which it is shown to be occipital bone. 

2. How is proving something doesn't look like what it's been claimed to be "specious and amateurish," especially when the one claiming as much agrees that that it doesn't look like it? 

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

He waves aside the fact that the only three pathologists who actually handled the Harper fragment all said it was occipital bone, even though Dr. Ebersole told the HSCA that one of the late-arriving skull fragments was occipital bone.

 

Oh my gosh, what a great point! I mean, I knew that Ebersole had testified to that, but it just didn't occur to me to use that as evidence against the BOH-hole-deniers like Pat.

Not only did Ebersole say that the fragment was occipital, but he also said that it completed the skull entrance half-hole near the external occipital protuberance (EOP) that Humes found during the autopsy on the margin of the still-intact skull bone.

Actually, somebody (Keven? You?) did post Ebersole's testimony regarding the fragment. I see now that I made a copy of it for my personal notes.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

David acknowledges that Angel, Riley, and numerous others are correct--that the Harper fragment bears little resemblance to occipital bone in the location where he places it. But he offers up the possibility JFK's skull bones were deformed by his Addison's disease as a get-around.

 

That isn't really true.

Mantik has collected some real human skulls that look much the same as the Harper fragment in the location where he places it.

I read that in one of the links Keven provided of Mantik's work. Mantik also shows a photo of one of the skull occipital bones. I don't think he even mention's JFK Addison's disease in the article I read.

 

[Pat Speer]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That isn't really true.

Mantik has collected some real human skulls that look much the same as the Harper fragment in the location where he places it.

I read that in one of the links Keven provided of Mantik's work. Mantik also shows a photo of one of the skull occipital bones. I don't think he even mention's JFK Addison's disease in the article I read.

 

Mantik, to his credit, kept updating his theories to account for counter-arguments raised mostly by Riley, Robertson, and myself. I'm fairly certain he first brought up steroids as an explanation for why the fragment does not appear to be occipital bone in 2015. 

Edited February 4 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

Edited February 6 by Keven Hofeling