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

[Michael Griffith]

22 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

We're in a time loop. 15 years ago or so, Fetzer on this very forum claimed Mantik had proved the x-rays had been altered to hide a hole in the back of the skull. I then pointed out that Mantik had long claimed the very back of the skull on the x-rays is not altered, and that he claimed instead that his OD measurements in this area proved there was a hole. Fetzer then checked with Mantik and Mantik confirmed what I'd told him--that he thinks the white patch was added to cover missing brain and not missing skull, and that whoever added the white patch had actually not covered up the hole on the skull.  

It should also be pointed out that Mantik places this hole on the skull in the middle of the occipital bone at the level of the ears. So, no, a number of witnesses pointing to a location above the occipital bone on the right side of the head does not support Mantik's claims, and his claim the middle of the back of the head was blown out at the level of the ears does not support that their recollections were accurate.

This is baffling and concerning. I just proved that the three morticians, two of whom actually handled the skull, put the wound in the back of the head at or near the midline, nowhere near the wound seen in the existing autopsy photos. Naturally, they did not perfectly, precisely agree on the exact location, but their placements were similar and were nowhere near the official exit wound. I should add that Robinson told both the HSCA and the ARRB that he saw a sizable back-of-head wound at or near the midline.

I also just proved that Spencer clearly recalled seeing a large back-of-head wound in the autopsy photos that she developed. And I just proved that Joe O'Donnell recalled seeing a back-of-head wound in some of the autopsy photos that Knudsen showed him.

I might add that other autopsy witnesses who described a sizable back-of-head wound include Edward Reed (to the HSCA), Dr. John Ebersole (to the HSCA), General Godfrey McHugh, Sibert and O'Neill (even though both assumed all shots came from behind), James Curtis Jenkins (to the HSCA), and Dr. Robert Karnei, among others. Moreover, Sibert, O'Neill, Robinson, and Jenkins drew wound diagrams for the HSCA, and all drew a sizable wound in the occiput or that included a sizable part of the occiput.

But according to you, all of these people, even the two morticians who handled the skull, could not tell the difference between a wound directly above the right ear and a wound that was in the occiput or that included a noticeable part of the occiput.

 

 

Edited January 31 by Michael Griffith

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It should also be pointed out that Mantik places this hole on the skull in the middle of the occipital bone at the level of the ears.

 

Mantik doesn't place the hole where you say. He places the Harper fragment there. The hole in the skull (and scalp) extended up and to the right from there.

The Harper fragment area was mostly covered with scalp, which explains why witnesses didn't see the gaping wound extending further left where the Harper fragment had been.

 

22 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So, no, a number of witnesses pointing to a location above the occipital bone on the right side of the head does not support Mantik's claims, and his claim the middle of the back of the head was blown out at the level of the ears does not support that their recollections were accurate.

 

You are wrong. Mantik's claims are fully consistent with what the gaping wound witnesses said.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Pat Speer Wrote:

 

This is baffling and concerning. I just proved that the three morticians, two of whom actually handled the skull, put the wound in back of the head at or near the midline, nowhere near the wound seen in the existing autopsy photos. Naturally, they did not perfectly, precisely agree on the exact location, but their placements were similar and were nowhere near the official exit wound. I should add that Robinson told both the HSCA and the ARRB that he saw a sizable back-of-head wound at or near the midline.

I just proved that Spencer clearly recalled seeing a large back-of-head wound in the autopsy photos that she developed. And I just proved that Joe O'Donnell recalled seeing a back-of-head wound in some of the autopsy photos that Knudsen showed him.

I might add that other autopsy witnesses who described a sizable back-of-head wound include Edward Reed (to the HSCA), Dr. John Ebersole (to the HSCA), General Godfrey McHugh, Sibert and O'Neill (even though both assumed all shots came from behind), James Curtis Jenkins (to the HSCA), and Dr. Robert Karnei, among others. Moreover, Sibert, O'Neill, Robinson, and Jenkins drew wound diagrams for the HSCA, and all drew a sizable wound in the occiput or that included a sizable part of the occiput.

But according to you, all of these people, even the two morticians who handled the skull, could not tell the difference between a wound directly above the right ear and a wound that was in the occiput or that included a noticeable part of the occiput.

 

 

A situation similar to what you are delineating for Mr. Speer also confronts him with regard to the other topic he addressed in the post to which you are responding, that being Dr. David Mantik's placement of the Harper Fragment in occipital bone on the back of JFK's head.

Mr. Speer wrote:

Quote

"...It should also be pointed out that Mantik places this hole [on the back of JFK's head where Dr. Mantik places the Harper Fragment] on the skull in the middle of the occipital bone at the level of the ears. So, no, a number of witnesses pointing to a location above the occipital bone on the right side of the head does not support Mantik's claims, and his claim the middle of the back of the head was blown out at the level of the ears does not support that their recollections were accurate...."

As with the occipital-parietal wound witnesses, Speer trivializes Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper Fragment in occipital bone by maligning Mantik's position by articulating that position uncharitably, or in most instances, scarcely at all. Instead, he sets forth country bumkin platitudes intermixed with instances of the ad hominem fallacy and guilt by association fallacy, as in his repetitive recitations of Fetzer anecdotes.

For the sake of those who are unfamiliar, Dr. Mantik has deduced that the Harper Fragment was derived from occipital bone, as demonstrated in the following illustration:

Just as Speer is loath to accurately recite the voluminous testimonial evidence in support of the occipital-parietal wound, he never recites the multi-faceted explanation of WHY Dr. Mantik places the Harper Fragment in occipital bone. It is not clear whether he even knows what data Mantik relies upon, since he offers nothing but seeming satirical parodies of same, possibly because his animus toward Mantik is legion, given a handful of encounters he has had with Mantik that should have humbled him, but evidently humiliated him instead.

At Section 6 of his 2015 book, "JFK's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis-and a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment," Dr. Mantik sets forth 15 indicators of an occipital origin for the Harper Fragment: 

As with the mass of testimonial evidence in support of the occipital-parietal wound, it is obvious from the above recitation of Mantik's 15 indicators that Speer repeatedly contends not with Mantik's scientific quantitative data but with straw men and fallacious anecdotes more designed to libel and malign Doctor Mantik than anything else. Speer, for example, claims that Randy Robertson and Joe Riley have refuted Mantik, but neglects to divulge that Mantik has authored persuasive rebuttals of their critiques, and has demonstrated that Robertson and Riley either have not seen or have declined to address probative evidence such as the X-Rays of the Harper Fragment uncovered by John Hunt at the National Archives, and the biological landmarks visible in the original F-8 photographs at the National Archives that provide the correct orientation of the skull, which has also been corroborated by Dr. Michael Chesser during his own sojourn to the Archives.  

MICHAEL CHESSER'S CORROBORATION OF BIOLOGICAL LANDMARKS IN F-8 ABOVE

Basically, all that Speer has to offer as his pathetic attempt to refute Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper Fragment is his claim that the accounts of the back-of-the-head witnesses -- who Speer claims not to believe anyway -- do not support a Harper Fragment placement in the middle of the back of JFK's head.

But Dr. McClelland's sketch of the occipital-parietal wound, sketched by his own hand during the filming of the first episode of The Men Who Killed Kennedy in 1988, reflects that it was a jagged wound that went higher into the upper back of the head than acknowledged by others, and it is not hard to imagine, as pointed out by Sandy Larsen in the previous post, that the Harper Fragment could have been blown out of the back of President Kennedy's head with scalp remaining in place over the midpoint of the back of the head:

Further supporting this scenario is the account of mortician Tom Robinson who described using a piece of rubber to seal a hole in the middle of the back of President Kennedy's head which he sketched as follows for the ARRB:

In short, while Mr. Speer specializes in fallacious anecdotes and pernicious attacks upon the reputations of honorable and reputable professionals (such as Dr. Robert McClelland and Dr. David Mantik), the adherence of those very professionals to the scientific method and the principles of charity have clearly carried the day in all respects...

 

Edited January 31 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

So now the mask has come off. Keven's not just here to try to make a name for himself by attacking me. He's here to defend the good name of Dr. Mantik, and to push that the Harper fragment is occipital bone. What nonsense! (And no, I'm not alone in this assessment. On this issue I am with the vast majority of "experts".)

[Keven Hofeling]

23 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So now the mask has come off. Keven's not just here to try to make a name for himself by attacking me. He's here to defend the good name of Dr. Mantik, and to push that the Harper fragment is occipital bone. What nonsense! (And no, I'm not alone in this assessment. On this issue I am with the vast majority of "experts".)

You evidently haven't noticed, but I have been defending a number of people who you have unjustly libeled and maligned.

And I'm sure a number of people on this forum have seen you make this claim that "the vast majority of "experts"" agree with your views about the Harper Fragment, F-8, autopsy photo and X-ray alteration, etc. 

 Okay, name these professionals, Mr. Speer. Give me a good long list.

Once upon a time when you pulled this particular stunt on Milicent Cranor, the following is how she responded:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22534-david-mantik-responds-to-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=321679

"Not one forensic radiologist has come forward to REBUT Mantik's findings either. Now why is that?

Rebuttal of conspiracy theorists -- whether valid or not -- is always encouraged, even rewarded, by the establishment. As most of us know, the opposite is true of those who support it.

I know of three diagnostic radiologists who find much of Mantik's work persuasive - but they would never go public on such a touchy subject. By "touchy subject" I mean the alteration of X-rays.

This is far more threatening to the Bad Guys than research disproving the Lone Nut Theory.

Consider the purpose of the Lone Nut scenario: surely it is to deflect attention away from the real culprits.

This deflection is now being accomplished by seemingly credible alternate scenarios that embrace conspiracy - but none likely to lead back to those responsible."

Milicent Cranor

Echoes here of a "limited hangout"...

 

Edited January 31 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

15 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

You evidently haven't noticed, but I have been defending a number of people who you have unjustly libeled and maligned.

And I'm sure a number of people on this forum have seen you make this claim that "the vast majority of "experts"" agree with your views about the Harper Fragment, F-8, autopsy photo and X-ray alteration, etc. 

 Okay, name these professionals, Mr. Speer. Give me a good long list.

Once upon a time when you pulled this particular stunt on Milicent Cranor, the following is how she responded:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22534-david-mantik-responds-to-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=321679

"Not one forensic radiologist has come forward to REBUT Mantik's findings either. Now why is that?

Rebuttal of conspiracy theorists -- whether valid or not -- is always encouraged, even rewarded, by the establishment. As most of us know, the opposite is true of those who support it.

I know of three diagnostic radiologists who find much of Mantik's work persuasive - but they would never go public on such a touchy subject. By "touchy subject" I mean the alteration of X-rays.

This is far more threatening to the Bad Guys than research disproving the Lone Nut Theory.

Consider the purpose of the Lone Nut scenario: surely it is to deflect attention away from the real culprits.

This deflection is now being accomplished by seemingly credible alternate scenarios that embrace conspiracy - but none likely to lead back to those responsible."

Milicent Cranor

Echoes here of a "limited hangout"...

 

You claim I've libeled people. Who, exactly, have I libeled? 

If anything, I have defended people against libel. For decades, this forum and others have been littered with claims that men such as Clint Hill, Charles Carrico, and Malcolm Perry were lying when they pointed to locations other than the far back of their head, or said the autopsy photos were consistent with what they witnessed. I have defended them. 

And now you come along and libel me? By repeatedly suggesting I am one of "them", and engaged in a "limited hangout"? 

I have spent years of my life collecting evidence and building arguments demonstrating there was a conspiracy, a conspiracy in which elements of the government knowingly covered up evidence for both multiple shooters, and Oswald's innocence.

How, on Earth, is that a "limited hangout"? Because I don't agree with Mantik and Horne and fill in the blank about their pet theories? 

Neither do you, really...

 

[Keven Hofeling]

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You claim I've libeled people. Who, exactly, have I libeled? 

If anything, I have defended people against libel. For decades, this forum and others have been littered with claims that men such as Clint Hill, Charles Carrico, and Malcolm Perry were lying when they pointed to locations other than the far back of their head, or said the autopsy photos were consistent with what they witnessed. I have defended them. 

And now you come along and libel me? By repeatedly suggesting I am one of "them", and engaged in a "limited hangout"? 

I have spent years of my life collecting evidence and building arguments demonstrating there was a conspiracy, a conspiracy in which elements of the government knowingly covered up evidence for both multiple shooters, and Oswald's innocence.

How, on Earth, is that a "limited hangout"? Because I don't agree with Mantik and Horne and fill in the blank about their pet theories? 

Neither do you, really...

 

You are deflecting. Where is your good long list of all the "experts" who agree with you and disagree with Dr. Mantik's findings?

___________

You evidently haven't noticed, but I have been defending a number of people who you have unjustly libeled and maligned.

And I'm sure a number of people on this forum have seen you make this claim that "the vast majority of "experts"" agree with your views about the Harper Fragment, F-8, autopsy photo and X-ray alteration, etc. 

 Okay, name these professionals, Mr. Speer. Give me a good long list.

Once upon a time when you pulled this particular stunt on Milicent Cranor, the following is how she responded:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22534-david-mantik-responds-to-pat-speer/?do=findComment&comment=321679

"Not one forensic radiologist has come forward to REBUT Mantik's findings either. Now why is that?

Rebuttal of conspiracy theorists -- whether valid or not -- is always encouraged, even rewarded, by the establishment. As most of us know, the opposite is true of those who support it.

I know of three diagnostic radiologists who find much of Mantik's work persuasive - but they would never go public on such a touchy subject. By "touchy subject" I mean the alteration of X-rays.

This is far more threatening to the Bad Guys than research disproving the Lone Nut Theory.

Consider the purpose of the Lone Nut scenario: surely it is to deflect attention away from the real culprits.

This deflection is now being accomplished by seemingly credible alternate scenarios that embrace conspiracy - but none likely to lead back to those responsible."

Milicent Cranor

Echoes here of a "limited hangout"...

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So now the mask has come off. Keven's not just here to try to make a name for himself by attacking me. He's here to defend the good name of Dr. Mantik, and to push that the Harper fragment is occipital bone. What nonsense!

Huh? The only three pathologists who actually handled the Harper fragment all concluded that it was occipital bone, and one of those pathologists, Dr. Cairns, was the chief of pathology at a hospital in Dallas. When one of the two other pathologists, Dr. Noteboom, was interviewed in 1992, he reaffirmed his identification of the fragment as occipital bone. 

Has anyone answered the dozens of pages of analysis of the Harper fragment that Dr. Mantik has presented in his last three books? Are you aware that Dr. Chesser, a neurologist, agrees that the Harper fragment is occipital bone? Are you aware that Dr. Ebersole told the HSCA that one of the late-arriving skull fragments was occipital bone?

Edited January 31 by Michael Griffith

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You claim I've libeled people. Who, exactly, have I libeled? 

If anything, I have defended people against libel. For decades, this forum and others have been littered with claims that men such as Clint Hill, Charles Carrico, and Malcolm Perry were lying when they pointed to locations other than the far back of their head, or said the autopsy photos were consistent with what they witnessed. I have defended them. 

And now you come along and libel me? By repeatedly suggesting I am one of "them", and engaged in a "limited hangout"? 

I have spent years of my life collecting evidence and building arguments demonstrating there was a conspiracy, a conspiracy in which elements of the government knowingly covered up evidence for both multiple shooters, and Oswald's innocence.

How, on Earth, is that a "limited hangout"? Because I don't agree with Mantik and Horne and fill in the blank about their pet theories? 

Neither do you, really...

 

I gotta chime in here. I disagree with Pat on plenty of issues in this case, some quite strongly, but regardless of whether or not you agree with his theories, the fact that he has made the equivalent of multiple books publicly available on his website for zero dollars should be applauded, as should his work on the medical evidence, even if you think he’s wrong. 

Pat has presented a coherent, logical counter argument for conspiracy using the extant medical evidence as-is. That’s pretty darn interesting, in my opinion. The fact is, we don’t know for sure that the autopsy photos were faked, or that the Parkland doctors were wrong, or that there were two headshots, or that the SBT is literally impossible, etc. etc. etc. All we can do is examine the evidence, weigh the probability of different scenarios, and attempt to figure out what really happened. 

Pat’s theory is also a much easier sell to skeptics who think the medical evidence proves that Oswald acted alone. IF Pat is correct that the extant medical evidence is clear-cut evidence of conspiracy, that’s a pretty big deal, so his theories should at least be taken seriously, IMO. 

Much of my interest in the medical evidence is focused on trying to reconcile Pat’s arguments about the head wound with a single EOP shot, and it is not an easy task. The reason I’m interested is simple: if the right combination of variables exists for a 6.5mm MC bullet to strike JFK’s head near the EOP, create the (official) head wound, launch large skull fragments into the air at high velocity, and rapidly push JFK in the opposite direction of the shot, those variables will inevitably be declared facts and used to support that Oswald did it, regardless of how improbable that scenario may be.

However, if there is a single legitimate “chokehold” i.e. some evidence that is totally incompatible with an EOP shot under any imaginable circumstances, that’s basically game over. Pat has identified several potential chokeholds, but there’s a big difference between improbable and impossible, so I think it’s worth the effort to nitpick and look for the right set of conditions that could make the WC shooting scenario actually work. 

Edited January 31 by Tom Gram

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I gotta chime in here. I disagree with Pat on plenty of issues in this case, some quite strongly, but regardless of whether or not you agree with his theories, the fact that he has made the equivalent of multiple books publicly available on his website for zero dollars should be applauded, as should his work on the medical evidence, even if you think he’s wrong. 

Pat has presented a coherent, logical counter argument for conspiracy using the extant medical evidence as-is. That’s pretty darn interesting, in my opinion. The fact is, we don’t know for sure that the autopsy photos were faked, or that the Parkland doctors were wrong, or that there were two headshots, or that the SBT is literally impossible, etc. etc. etc. All we can do is examine the evidence, weigh the probability of different scenarios, and attempt to figure out what really happened. 

Pat’s theory is also a much easier sell to skeptics who think the medical evidence proves that Oswald acted alone. IF Pat is correct that the extant medical evidence is clear-cut evidence of conspiracy, that’s a pretty big deal, so his theories should at least be taken seriously, IMO. 

Much of my interest in the medical evidence is focused on trying to reconcile Pat’s arguments about the head wound with a single EOP shot, and it is not an easy task. The reason I’m interested is simple: if the right combination of variables exist for a 6.5mm MC bullet to strike JFK’s head near the EOP, create the (official) head wound, launch large skull fragments into the air at high velocity, and rapidly push JFK in the opposite direction of the shot, those variables will inevitably be declared facts and used to support that Oswald did it, regardless of how improbable that scenario may be.

However, if there is a single legitimate “chokehold” i.e. some evidence that is totally incompatible with an EOP shot under any imaginable circumstances, that’s basically game over. Pat has identified several potential chokeholds, but there’s a big difference between improbable and impossible, so I think it’s worth the effort to nitpick and look for the right set of conditions that would make the WC shooting scenario actually work. 

Thanks, Tom, for standing up. I'm glad to see someone gets "it." 

I have learned an awful lot from people I don't agree with, and have a hard time understanding why people can't just accept my ideas for what they are--my ideas--and leave it at that when they disagree.

Underlying all this outrage and vitriol, it seems to me, is the idea that the evidence is clear and we now know what happened--and that any counter-argument is disinformation. Well, this would be news to most everyone who's done any real research, and that includes Dr. Mantik. Mantik, it should be known, went against the grain and argued against the validity of the acoustics evidence at a private conference put on by Aguilar. Some were upset by this, and thought maybe he had a screw loose, and said as much to others. But I stopped them short and said I pretty much agreed with him. Yes, I defended Mantik...to people who might very well agree with Mantik on a number of things with which I disagree. And that's how it is at these private conferences. There is no party platform. No one is expected to "toe the line." 

Why people think this forum should be different is beyond bizarre. 

 

Edited January 31 by Pat Speer

[Stu Wexler]

Someone indicated that John Hunt agreed with Chesser and Mantik on the Harper fragment. John Hunt did not agree that the Harper fragment was occipital. He agreed with Dr. Joe Riley and Dr. Lawrence Angel (and I believe Pat Speer.)

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

Edited January 31 by Stu Wexler

[Keven Hofeling]

19 minutes ago, Stu Wexler said:

Someone indicated that John Hunt agreed with Chesser and Mantik on the Harper fragment. John Hunt did not agree that the Harper fragment was occipital. He agreed with Dr. Joe Riley and Dr. Lawrence Angel (and I believe Pat Speer.)

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

The role that John Hunt played in Dr. Mantik's findings about the Harper Fragment is that Hunt unearthed X-Rays of the Harper Fragment at the National Archives which he supplied to Dr. Mantik, and which played a fundamental role in Mantik moving the Harper Fragment from his previous placement of it to the middle of the occiput. The other cast of characters, Randy Robertson, Joe Riley, Lawrence Angel, Pat Speer and others didn't have access to those X-Rays, and therefore didn't include them in their analyses.

[Keven Hofeling]

45 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks, Tom, for standing up. I'm glad to see someone gets "it." 

I have learned an awful lot from people I don't agree with, and have a hard time understanding why people can't just accept my ideas for what they are--my ideas--and leave it at that when they disagree.

Underlying all this outrage and vitriol, it seems to me, is the idea that the evidence is clear and we now know what happened--and that any counter-argument is disinformation. Well, this would be news to most everyone who's done any real research, and that includes Dr. Mantik. Mantik, it should be known, went against the grain and argued against the validity of the acoustics evidence at a private conference put on by Aguilar. Some were upset by this, and thought maybe he had a screw loose, and said as much to others. But I stopped them short and said I pretty much agreed with him. Yes, I defended Mantik...to people who might very well agree with Mantik on a number of things with which I disagree. And that's how it is at these private conferences. There is no party platform. No one is expected to "toe the line." 

Why people think this forum should be different is beyond bizarre. 

 

In your own roundabout way, you are describing the principle of charity as applied to formal and informal debate, but that is not the way you have actually conducted yourself toward others -- such as Dr. McClelland and Dr. Mantik -- now is it? You have taken a systematic scorched earth warfare approach toward them and others, impugning their work, their qualifications and who they are as human beings. I've even had a taste of that in the form of your "stalker" allegations in return for exposing your fabrications about Jerrol Custer's ARRB testimony.

Yet you expect charity in return?

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I gotta chime in here. I disagree with Pat on plenty of issues in this case, some quite strongly, but regardless of whether or not you agree with his theories, the fact that he has made the equivalent of multiple books publicly available on his website for zero dollars should be applauded, as should his work on the medical evidence, even if you think he’s wrong. 

 

The problem is that Pat grossly cherry picks and misrepresents testimony in order to make his case. That's dishonest behavior in my book.

This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with someone. If someone on my side of an issue was called out for dishonest behavior, I wouldn't say a word in their defense. I'd think he had it coming.

 

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Pat has presented a coherent, logical counter argument for conspiracy using the extant medical evidence as-is.

 

What Pat has presented is mathematically impossible.

 

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

The fact is, we don’t know for sure that the autopsy photos were faked, or that the Parkland doctors were wrong, or that there were two headshots, or that the SBT is literally impossible, etc.etc. etc.

 

Using laws of probability, it's very easy to prove that there was a gaping hole in the back of the head. Which means the back of head photos are fraudulent.

That should be the end of the discussion there. But I understand that people have a hard time believing a mathematical proof.

 

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Pat’s theory is also a much easier sell to skeptics who think the medical evidence proves that Oswald acted alone.

 

That's relevant only if you think it's okay to use debunked theories to win converts.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The problem is that Pat grossly cherry picks and misrepresents testimony in order to make his case. That's dishonest behavior in my book.

This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with someone. If someone on my side of an issue was called out for dishonest behavior, I wouldn't say a word in their defense. I'd think he had it coming.

 

 

What Pat has presented is mathematically impossible.

 

 

Using laws of probability, it's very easy to prove that there was a gaping hole in the back of the head. Which means the back of head photos are fraudulent.

That should be the end of the discussion there. But I understand that people have a hard time believing a mathematical proof.

 

 

That's relevant only if you think it's okay to use debunked theories to win converts.

 

So you agree that there was no entrance on the front of the head, then? I mean, there was some divergence among those seeing JFK's large head wound--some said low on the back of the head, some said high on the back of the head, some said side--but none of the Parkland witnesses said they saw an entrance on the front of the head, i.e., the part of the head they were actually looking at. No one saw it. And Clark, for one, actually looked for it. 

So it obviously didn't exist. I guess. 

Edited February 1 by Pat Speer