JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail: An Unsolvable Problem for WC Apologists
Lance Payette:
That retching sound you hear is MTG regurgitating yet another batch of the same old, same old.
Here is the essentially identical thread, with the same title, from 2023 at the Ed Forum: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29157-the-vanishing-low-fragment-trail-and-wc-apologists/#comment-502109.
Since Pat Speer participates extensively and pretty well kicks MTG's fanny, it actually might be worth reading. FWIW, MTG says in response to one of Speer's criticisms of Mantik (relating to Mantik's close association with Fetzer), "As for 9/11, he [Mantik] said he is open to the possibility of controlled demolitions but stressed that he has done no research on the subject and is not an expert on the matter." But here, no more than two days ago, MTG was referencing Mantik's supposed work on 9/11. And on it goes.
At the 2023 thread, MTG begins by saying "In other forums, I have tried repeatedly to get WC apologists to explain the fact that the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the extant autopsy skull x-rays." And yet here we go again. What must it be like to have this obsessive loop playing in your head, over and over and over?
I have no personal axe to grind with MTG. He's just such a perfect example of the lunatic fringe CTer that I'd almost have to invent him if he didn't exist.
Here is Pat Speer's extensive chapter on the head wound: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster
Here are his two chapters on Mantik, "Stuck in the Middle with You" and "Dr. Mantik's Flying Circus": https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19d-stuck-in-the-middle-with-you, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19e-dr-mantiks-flying-circus
Michael T. Griffith:
In a supreme display of selectivity and confirmation bias, the same lone-gunman theorists who claim that all three autopsy doctors, including Dr. Finck, who was a board-certified forensic pathologist, (1) mistook a wound 1 cm above the lambda in the parietal bone for a wound 1 cm above the EOP in the occipital bone, even though they had the hairline, the lambda, and the EOP as reference points, and even though they reflected the scalp and examined the wound from the interior of the skull, and (2) mistook the plainly obvious downward-trajectory fragment trail near the top of the skull that goes nowhere near the back of the head for an upward-trajectory fragment trail at least 2 inches lower and that started very near the back of the head—the same lone-gunman theorists who accuse the autopsy doctors of making these astonishing blunders turn around and assure us that the autopsy doctors accurately described the exit wound on the head!
I must confess that when I first became aware of the relocation of the rear head entry wound shortly after I began to study the assassination, I merely assumed this was further proof that the autopsy doctors were severely incompetent. But, when I realized the huge difference between the EOP site and the revised location (the cowlick site), I thought, “Wait a minute. Not even Humes, Boswell, and Finck could have made such a gigantic blunder.”
As I began to get a better handle on the medical evidence and on the trajectories involved in the shooting, I realized that the EOP site could not have been hit by a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window, and that this was why the wound was moved. (As mentioned earlier, the WC’s experts had to assume JFK’s head was tilted over 50 degrees forward to get the EOP site to line up with the sixth-floor window.)
What makes the gigantic-blunder argument even more wildly implausible is the fact that the autopsy doctors reaffirmed the EOP site when they examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives in January 1967. In their report on the examination, they stated that the autopsy photos showed the rear head entry wound where they placed it in the autopsy report:
The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). In non-technical language, this indicates that a small wound was found in the back of the head on the right side. Photographs Nos 15, 16, 42, and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate. . . .
The photographs and x-rays corroborate our visual observations during the autopsy and conclusively support our medical opinion as set forth in the summary of our autopsy report. (Report on Examination of JFK Autopsy Materials, 1/26/67, pp. 3, 5)
Furthermore, autopsy witnesses Roy Kellerman and Francis O’Neill put the rear head entry wound near the EOP/hairline in the wound diagrams they drew for federal investigators. And, chief autopsy photographer John Stringer also said the wound was near the EOP/hairline, and he specifically rejected the cowlick entry site when asked to examine the autopsy photos.
Getting back to the 7x2 mm fragment seen above the right orbit in the autopsy skull x-rays, if you view the fragment on the lateral skull x-ray, you see that it is nowhere near the high fragment trail and does not come close to aligning with the trail’s trajectory. It is a good 1 inch (2.5 cm) below the high fragment trail and 1.25 inches (3.1 cm) to the right of it.
Finally, I see that Lance Payette is citing college dropout Pat Speer's blundering attacks on Dr. Mantik's optical-density research. If you want to see how erroneous and amateurish Speer's attacks are in this area, I recommend reading Dr. Mantik's reply to them:
https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf
BTW, Speer strongly argues that the EOP site is correct. I thought I should mention this, since Payette ignored it. Speer has an entrenched ideological bias against the idea that any of the medical evidence was planted or altered, and this has led him to make truly embarrassing arguments against Mantik's optical-density research (and also against Dr. Michael Chesser's optical-density research). However, when it comes to the rear head entry wound, he argues that the cowlick site is bogus, that the cowlick site was put forward to avoid the impossible trajectory required for the EOP site, and that the EOP site can actually be seen on one of the autopsy photos.
Payette is citing an old, early statement by Dr. Mantik on 9/11, a statement he made before he had done any research on the subject. Dr. Mantik soon came to firmly reject 9/11 Truther claims, as he has made clear. I have personally talked with Dr. Mantik about this issue at length. He is totally convinced that 9/11 Truth claims are false. In an ongoing email discussion, he has posted evidence against 9/11 Truther claims.
Notice that the WC believers who are posting in this thread are making no attempt to explain the evidence I'm presenting. They're doing everything but that.
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 15, 2026, 04:59:34 PM ---Payette is citing an old, early statement by Dr. Mantik on 9/11, a statement he made before he had done any research on the subject. Dr. Mantik soon came to firmly reject 9/11 Truther claims, as he has made clear. I have personally talked with Dr. Mantik about this issue at length. He is totally convinced that 9/11 Truth claims are false. In an ongoing email discussion, he has posted evidence against 9/11 Truther claims.
--- End quote ---
Super! Your statement about Mantik knowing nothing about 9/11 was made on June 2, 2023, and you said you had just conferred with him. He has now dived into the issue with both feet and is prepared to speak authoritatively on the subject, although I can find no reference to him ever having said anything about 9/11. So why did you ignore Mark Ulrik's polite requests to share Mantik's supposed research that you referenced ... hmmmm? ::)
I have a feeling your ad hominem attacks on a CT researcher of the quality of Pat Speer are only enhancing his reputation and further diminishing yours. As with Bart Kamp, I can appreciate the thoroughness and value of Pat's work without agreeing with everything he says (and I am inclined to agree with his placement of the head wound entry). Bart's and Pat's sites are two of the genuine goldmines of JFKA material.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 15, 2026, 05:33:40 PM ---Super! Your statement about Mantik knowing nothing about 9/11 was made on June 2, 2023, and you said you had just conferred with him.
--- End quote ---
Yes, like many people, he had no interest in examining 9/11 Truther claims at the time, although he did publicly break with Fetzer when Fetzer embraced the nuttiest of the nutty 9/11 Truther claims years earlier. I myself did not spend much time looking into those claims until just a few years ago. I wasn't even aware of some of them until several years after they surfaced.
It is really rather sleazy for you to question Dr. Mantik's integrity. Anyone who knows him will tell you the man is honest to the point of fault. Even the rabid anti-medical-film-evidence-alteration Pat Speer felt compelled to retract his attack on Dr. Mantik's integrity.
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 15, 2026, 05:33:40 PM ---He has now dived into the issue with both feet and is prepared to speak authoritatively on the subject, although I can find no reference to him ever having said anything about 9/11. So why did you ignore Mark Ulrik's polite requests to share Mantik's supposed research that you referenced ... hmmmm? ::)
--- End quote ---
Umm, just a few days ago I posted some of Dr. Mantik's recent comments about how DNA evidence refutes 9/11 Truther claims. Sheesh. . . .
What does any of this have to do with the subject of the thread: the fact that the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the extant autopsy skull x-rays?
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 15, 2026, 05:33:40 PM ---I have a feeling your ad hominem attacks on a CT researcher of the quality of Pat Speer are only enhancing his reputation and further diminishing yours.
--- End quote ---
I think you're being dishonest. I have never questioned Pat Speer's integrity or sincerity, and I have praised and cited some of his research on other issues.
I have questioned Speer's reflexive bias against any and all evidence of alteration of the autopsy materials and the Zapruder film. I have questioned his truly awful attacks on Dr. Mantik's optical-density research. He blunders horrendously in trying to explain away the white patch, for example, claiming it is a bone flap that is clearly in the wrong place to be the white patch. His attempts to innocently explain the 6.5 mm object are both hilarious and pitiful. He is simply way out of his depth on these issues, but he is very good on issues that don't involve medical-evidence/photographic-evidence alteration. He has even claimed that OD measurements are worthless when it comes to metallic objects, an erroneous claim that show he doesn't even grasp the basic of OD measurement.
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 15, 2026, 05:33:40 PM ---As with Bart Kamp, I can appreciate the thoroughness and value of Pat's work without agreeing with everything he says (and I am inclined to agree with his placement of the head wound entry). Bart's and Pat's sites are two of the genuine goldmines of JFKA material.
--- End quote ---
Oh, hogwash! "Without agreeing with everything he says"?! You agree with almost nothing he says, certainly with almost none of his major conclusions, e.g., that the alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, expert marksman; that the curtain rod story is false and was invented to incriminate Oswald; that Silvia Odio was credible; that the Warren Commission was a whitewash; that Baden rigged much of the FPP's investigation; that Dale Myers' trajectory research is badly flawed, saying "his deception regarding the single-bullet theory is simply inexcusable"; etc., etc., etc.
I think it is rather dishonest for you to pretend that you agree with anything approaching a substantive portion of Pat Speer's research.
Now, if you are truly "inclined" to agree with Speer's placement of the rear head entry wound, then you need to explain how in the world the bullet that made that wound could have come from the sixth-floor window. The only theory that Larry Sturdivan has offered to explain this problem is that after the bullet entered the skull it magically veered sharply upward and to the right, yet not a single bullet in the WC's wound ballistics tests performed such an impossible feat. That's just as bad as the WC experts' assumption that JFK's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck.
I mean, it would be nice if you would finally take a stab at trying to explain the vanishing fragment trail, especially since you say you lean toward the EOP site.
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 15, 2026, 07:23:02 PM ---It is really rather sleazy for you to question Dr. Mantik's integrity.
--- End quote ---
I am sleazy to the core, but you'll have to show me and the audience where I questioned Mantik's integrity. I know nothing about him except that shoplifting incident at Walmart and the animal abuse allegations. :D :D :D
--- Quote ---What does any of this have to do with the subject of the thread: the fact that the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the extant autopsy skull x-rays?
--- End quote ---
It has nothing to do with it. Enquiring minds simply wonder why you ignored Mark's request if Mantik is now neck-deep in 9/11 studies.
--- Quote ---I think you're being dishonest. I have never questioned Pat Speer's integrity or sincerity, and I have praised and cited some of his research on other issues.
--- End quote ---
Ah, the references to "college dropout Pat Speer" and his "blundering, amateurish and erroneous" attacks on Mantik were mere slips of the keyboard. Well, it happens.
Do you actually have a little home shrine to Mantik, replete with votive candles and whatnot? The cast of characters with whom Mantik has been associated does not exactly inspire confidence. Pat Speer's massive critique is still up, includes pretty recent references, and seems devastating to me ("Mantik's numerous and repeated mistakes form a pattern--a pattern in which he misrepresents evidence to support a dubious theory and then misrepresents more evidence to defend his theory against heretics like myself"). But others can judge for themselves: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-19d-stuck-in-the-middle-with-you
--- Quote ---I think it is rather dishonest for you to pretend that you agree with anything approaching a substantive portion of Pat Speer's research.
--- End quote ---
I am relentlessly dishonest in addition to being sleazy, but I pretend nothing. I respect all of Pat's efforts. I haven't done a quantitative analysis as to the percentage I agree with, but it's all worth a look.
--- Quote ---Now, if you are truly "inclined" to agree with Speer's placement of the rear head entry wound, then you need to explain how in the world the bullet that made that wound could have come from the sixth-floor window. The only theory that Larry Sturdivan has offered to explain this problem is that after the bullet entered the skull it magically veered sharply upward and to the right, yet not a single bullet in the WC's wound ballistics tests performed such an impossible feat. That's just as bad as the WC experts' assumption that JFK's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck.
I mean, it would be nice if you would finally take a stab at trying to explain the vanishing fragment trail, especially since you say you lean toward the EOP site.
--- End quote ---
I don't "need" to explain anything. When the autopsy doctors, WC and HSCA couldn't agree within 4" about the wound entry, and the Harper fragment has been fitted just about everywhere but JFK's crotch, and characters like Mantik see things that no one else sees, I merely watch in wonderment as the debate unfolds. I was quite impressed by Sturdivan's book, but your use of terms such as "magically" and "impossible" tells us you are simply a crank.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version