Wacky WechtFest -- The Harper Fragment

[John McAdams]

There was, in fact, essentially only one panel during which
alternative views were presented. At least, presented intentionally.
In plenty of cases, a conspiracy presentation would contradict the
conspiracy presentation next on the program.

On this panel, David Mantik argued that the "Harper Fragment" is
mostly from occipital bone, while Pat Speer argued it is parietal
bone.

Mantik's argument was rather arcane, and relied heavily on the
standard conspiracy testimony of the "back of the head" witnesses.

His anatomic observations seemed odd. For example, he claims what the
lambdoid suture disappears at a certain place in the AP x-ray. But
what he seems to be calling the lambndod suture lines are actually
radiating fracture lines from the entrance wound in the cowlick area
(Mantik seems not to know that the x-rays was shot from the "Waters
position," in effect "looking" upward from below the jaw.

In order to make his scenario work, he has to posit a head shot a bit
after Z-313.

Speer goes through a rather involved description of how his interest
in the case began in 1993 when he gave a girlfriend a copy of Bob
Groden's THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT.

He claimed to see an entry wound in the back of the head in a "low"
location, near the blob of tissue near the hairline.

Speer thinks that the nearly round fragment which the medical panels
put at the rear of the head was actually right behind Kennedy's eye.

He concedes a "tangential" wound to the right top of Kennedy's head,
and therefore thinks that the Harper Fragment is parietal bone.

Actually, this placement of the wound is reasonable enough, although
Speer believes a bullet hit Kennedy's head from the front, and not the
back.

And then, there is that second entry wound in the back of the head
down near the blob of tissue (which nobody else has seen).

.John

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/17/2013 11:26 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> There was, in fact, essentially only one panel during which
> alternative views were presented. At least, presented intentionally.
> In plenty of cases, a conspiracy presentation would contradict the
> conspiracy presentation next on the program.
>
> On this panel, David Mantik argued that the "Harper Fragment" is
> mostly from occipital bone, while Pat Speer argued it is parietal
> bone.
>
> Mantik's argument was rather arcane, and relied heavily on the
> standard conspiracy testimony of the "back of the head" witnesses.
>
> His anatomic observations seemed odd. For example, he claims what the
> lambdoid suture disappears at a certain place in the AP x-ray. But
> what he seems to be calling the lambndod suture lines are actually
> radiating fracture lines from the entrance wound in the cowlick area
> (Mantik seems not to know that the x-rays was shot from the "Waters
> position," in effect "looking" upward from below the jaw.
>

That's not quite accurate. It was a modified Waters position and we
argued about the exact angle.

> In order to make his scenario work, he has to posit a head shot a bit
> after Z-313.
>
> Speer goes through a rather involved description of how his interest
> in the case began in 1993 when he gave a girlfriend a copy of Bob
> Groden's THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT.
>
> He claimed to see an entry wound in the back of the head in a "low"
> location, near the blob of tissue near the hairline.
>

It was Humes who thought the dab of fat near the hairline was the
entrance wound.

[Dave Reitzes]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:26:18 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> There was, in fact, essentially only one panel during which
>
> alternative views were presented. At least, presented intentionally.
>
> In plenty of cases, a conspiracy presentation would contradict the
>
> conspiracy presentation next on the program.
>
>
>
> On this panel, David Mantik argued that the "Harper Fragment" is
>
> mostly from occipital bone, while Pat Speer argued it is parietal
>
> bone.
>
>
>
> Mantik's argument was rather arcane, and relied heavily on the
>
> standard conspiracy testimony of the "back of the head" witnesses.
>
>
>
> His anatomic observations seemed odd. For example, he claims what the
>
> lambdoid suture disappears at a certain place in the AP x-ray. But
>
> what he seems to be calling the lambndod suture lines are actually
>
> radiating fracture lines from the entrance wound in the cowlick area
>
> (Mantik seems not to know that the x-rays was shot from the "Waters
>
> position," in effect "looking" upward from below the jaw.
>
>
>
> In order to make his scenario work, he has to posit a head shot a bit
>
> after Z-313.

What difference do frame numbers mean to Mantik? He thinks the film has
been drastically altered.

> Speer goes through a rather involved description of how his interest
>
> in the case began in 1993 when he gave a girlfriend a copy of Bob
>
> Groden's THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT.

Just what every woman wants. \:^)

> He claimed to see an entry wound in the back of the head in a "low"
>
> location, near the blob of tissue near the hairline.

Right. This is a cornerstone (if not the whole foundation) of his
elaborate theory: he sees an entry wound in poor quality, published copies
of a BOH photo that none of the experts could see in the originals.

> Speer thinks that the nearly round fragment which the medical panels
>
> put at the rear of the head was actually right behind Kennedy's eye.
>
>
>
> He concedes a "tangential" wound to the right top of Kennedy's head,
>
> and therefore thinks that the Harper Fragment is parietal bone.
>
>
>
> Actually, this placement of the wound is reasonable enough, although
>
> Speer believes a bullet hit Kennedy's head from the front, and not the
>
> back.
>
>
>
> And then, there is that second entry wound in the back of the head
>
> down near the blob of tissue (which nobody else has seen).
>
>
>
> .John

God forbid we should hear from actual forensic experts on such issues. As
Speer has told me, he believes his opinion on the medical evidence is more
valid than that of the forensic experts who have studied it, because he's
studied it more. Presumably Mantik feels much the same way, or else why
would he be at a conference talking about the medical evidence?

For 50 years, it's been the blind leading the blind.

Dave

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Actually, John, you missed it. My take on the Harper fragment includes
that it is almost certainly the upper margin of a tangential entry...fired
from behind.

So, yeah, it was a pro-conspiracy presentation--in which I argued both
that the Parkland witnesses claiming the large head wound was on the back
of the head were wrong, and that the fatal shot came from behind.

Not your usual fare...

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:26:18 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

The wound in the right forehead is correct. It was seen by others,
including Tom Robinson, the mortician. It is an entry wound, and the exit
is the 'large hole' in the BOH, which was seen by many listed in another
thread.

Those that view the other thread that has 33 and more witnesses to the
'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, will not have much to argue about is my guess.
At which time they can move on to deciding where the bullet came from to
cause such a wound coupled with the forehead entry.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Humes was all over the lot. He had the entrance wound in many places.
He had his orders, as long as he didn't find the entry to be in front.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

John is an unreliable witness. He gets easily confused.

[Anthony Marsh]

Where? Show me. I actually managed to get Mantik and Randy Robertson
into the same room to thrash out their differences.

>
>> Speer thinks that the nearly round fragment which the medical panels
>>
>> put at the rear of the head was actually right behind Kennedy's eye.
>>
>>
>>
>> He concedes a "tangential" wound to the right top of Kennedy's head,
>>
>> and therefore thinks that the Harper Fragment is parietal bone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, this placement of the wound is reasonable enough, although
>>
>> Speer believes a bullet hit Kennedy's head from the front, and not the
>>
>> back.
>>
>>
>>
>> And then, there is that second entry wound in the back of the head
>>
>> down near the blob of tissue (which nobody else has seen).
>>
>>
>>
>> .John
>
>
> God forbid we should hear from actual forensic experts on such issues. As
> Speer has told me, he believes his opinion on the medical evidence is more
> valid than that of the forensic experts who have studied it, because he's
> studied it more. Presumably Mantik feels much the same way, or else why
> would he be at a conference talking about the medical evidence?
>
> For 50 years, it's been the blind leading the blind.
>
> Dave
>

And you want us to rely on "experts" who are unqualified and lie about
the evidence. Do you still think the entrance wound was at the level of
the EOP or below it or slightly above it?

[David Von Pein]

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

Speer believes a bullet hit Kennedy's head from the front, and not the
back.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

You're wrong about that, John.

Unless he's changed his tune in the last year or so, Pat Speer thinks ALL
the shots came from the rear, including his make-believe "tangential" head
shot and his make-believe entry wound low on the head near the white blob.

Amazing, isn't it....how close some people can get to accepting the
complete Warren Commission scenario....and yet they just can't quite seem
to cross that line in the sand to accept it ALL the way.

Like Pat Speer -- he'll acknowledge that every shot came from the rear of
the limo (unless, as I said, he's changed his mind recently on that
belief), but he can't quite bring himself to accept the precise WC
scenario (which is a scenario, of course, that is supported by every last
piece of physical evidence in the case--i.e., Oswald fired 3 shots from
the sixth floor of the TSBD).

And we've got Robert Harris -- He believes in a variation of the
SBT....but he can't quite travel that extra few yards to accept the WC's
version of the SBT...or even the HSCA's version of it. So he's got to make
up a different version....with a shooter breaking glass in the Dal-Tex in
order to have a shot at the President.

So close to accepting Officialdom.....and yet so far.

~sigh~

[Dave Reitzes]

Everybody wants to be the one who "solves" it once and for all.

Dave

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Friday, October 18, 2013 8:44:23 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>
>
>
> Speer believes a bullet hit Kennedy's head from the front, and not the
>
> back.
>
>
>
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
>
>
> You're wrong about that, John.
>
>
>
> Unless he's changed his tune in the last year or so, Pat Speer thinks ALL
>
> the shots came from the rear, including his make-believe "tangential" head
>
> shot

At the Wecht conference, I went through the evidence point by point and
demonstrated that all the evidence points to a tangential hit on the side
of Kennedy's head. Now, I would love to be able to tell you it points to a
tangential hit from the front, but it does not.

If you want to debate me on this topic, before a large audience, anytime
anywhere, I would welcome the opportunity.

>and his make-believe entry wound low on the head near the white blob.

It's funny how I'm supposed to be the wacky guy seeing things when I see
things EXACTLY where the autopsy doctors said they were, and you want
people to see something where NO ONE at the autopsy saw it. Hmmm... what's
wrong with this picture?

>
>
>
> Amazing, isn't it....how close some people can get to accepting the
>
> complete Warren Commission scenario....and yet they just can't quite seem
>
> to cross that line in the sand to accept it ALL the way.

NO ONE accepts it all the way, not even you. Do you believe the bullet
entered by the EOP? Of course not. Do you believe the other bullet entered
at the base of the neck? Oh wait a minute...

>
>
>
> Like Pat Speer -- he'll acknowledge that every shot came from the rear of
>
> the limo (unless, as I said, he's changed his mind recently on that
>
> belief), but he can't quite bring himself to accept the precise WC
>
> scenario (which is a scenario, of course, that is supported by every last
>
> piece of physical evidence in the case--i.e., Oswald fired 3 shots from
>
> the sixth floor of the TSBD).
>
>
>
> And we've got Robert Harris -- He believes in a variation of the
>
> SBT....but he can't quite travel that extra few yards to accept the WC's
>
> version of the SBT...or even the HSCA's version of it. So he's got to make
>
> up a different version....with a shooter breaking glass in the Dal-Tex in
>
> order to have a shot at the President.
>
>
>
> So close to accepting Officialdom.....and yet so far.

Why oh why would anyone want to "accept officialdom"? We don't live in
Stepford, last I checked. You find me someone who "accepts officialdom"
and I'll show you someone who irons his socks. Scary.

>
>
>
> ~sigh~

[pjsp...@aol.com]

This is misleading. I spent much of my presentation, and spend much of my
online book, reporting what experts say about specific items of evidence.
You seem unable to process that very few forensic pathologists are experts
on military gunshot wounds. When confronted with a case outside their
expertise, they go to the library and read a textbook. Or call up a
friend. I went to the library.

So the reality is I'm reporting on what experts have to say, and using
that to debunk guys who never went to the library.