JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on June 13, 2026, 07:54:25 PM
-
Two of the monumental problems facing lone-gunman theorists, two problems they have yet to credibly explain, involve the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report and the obvious high fragment trail on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
The autopsy doctors wrote in the autopsy report, and repeated in their WC testimony, that during the autopsy they observed a fragment trail that ran upward from the rear head entry wound, which they said was slightly above the external occipital protuberance (EOP), to a point just above the right eye, i.e., the right supraorbital ridge. The supraorbital ridge is also called the brow ridge because it is the bone beneath your eyebrows. I quote the autopsy report:
Roentgenograms [x-rays] of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above- described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge. (p. 4).
However, no such fragment trail appears on the existing autopsy skull x-rays. This fact was confirmed by the HSCA’s medical panel (FPP), was confirmed by the three ARRB forensic experts, and has been confirmed by numerous private experts, including Dr. David Mantik, Dr. Mike Chesser, Dr. Robert Livingston, Dr. John Lattimer, and Dr. Gary Aguilar.
The only fragment trail that appears on the extant skull x-rays is the high fragment trail that is plainly visible near the top of the head. It is a whopping 5.9 inches (15 cm) above the EOP. The majority of the fragments in the trail are clustered in the right-front part of the skull. Incredibly, the autopsy report says nothing about this fragment trail—absolutely nothing, not one word.
The high fragment trail is also 1.9 inches (5 cm) above the alleged “revised” entry site that was proposed by other experts years after the autopsy, i.e., the cowlick entry site. The cowlick site, first proposed by the Clark Panel in 1968, then the Rockefeller Commission’s medical panel in 1975, and then the FPP in 1979, is markedly higher than the autopsy report’s EOP site—it is 3.93 inches (10 cm) above the EOP site. The extreme implausibility that three pathologists could so severely mislocate the entry wound is another major problem for the lone-gunman theory, but I will not discuss it in this post.
There are only three explanations for why the existing autopsy skull x-rays do not show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report:
One, the autopsy doctors committed the unbelievable blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail (1) that started a whopping 5.9 inches (15 cm) lower, (2) that was in a different bone of the skull (parietal vs. occipital), and (3) that ran at a downward angle instead of an upward angle from the back of the head, even though they had the EOP, the lambdoid suture, and the lambda as reference points (keep in mind they reflected the scalp so they could examine the wound in the skull). A first-year medical student would not make such an astonishing blunder.
Two, the autopsy doctors saw no fragment trail that ran from the EOP to the right eyebrow but falsely said they did (1) because they wanted to strengthen the case for the EOP entry site, (2) because the high fragment trail did not align with the EOP site, and (3) because there was no wound on the back of the head that they could associate with the high fragment trail.
Three, the low fragment trail was removed from the autopsy x-rays, or its fragments were removed from the skull and the skull was then x-rayed again, because some of the people involved in the medical cover-up recognized that the low fragment trail, like the EOP entry site, would pose unsolvable problems for the lone-gunman theory.
If the low fragment trail was present in Kennedy’s skull on the night of the autopsy, the people who were running the medical cover-up decided to get rid of it. Why would they have done this? Because the low fragment trail supported the EOP entry site, and because they could not allow the autopsy skull x-rays to show two separate fragment trails, since this would have clearly indicated two head shots.
Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who has examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, has concluded that those who were doing the medical cover-up moved the rear head entry wound partly because the EOP site and the autopsy report’s exit point do not line up with the high fragment trail:
I think that one of the reasons they moved the entry wound up was due to the fragment particle trail shown in the right lateral skull x-ray. If a line is drawn from the Warren Commission entry site and the proposed exit site, you’ll notice that the particle trail doesn’t correspond with these sites. The prominent particle trail is located in the upper portion of the skull.
Now if you do the same for the HSCA entry and exit sites, you’ll notice that the line is closer to the particle trail, but it still doesn’t seem to correspond. (Michael Chesser, “A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs,” 2015, http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/.)
Dr. Chesser then explains why the high fragment trail is consistent with a shot to the right-frontal region:
I am just one of many who believe that the entry site responsible for this particle trail was in the right frontal region, at or just above the hairline. If you notice the location, I’ve moved it up slightly from the skull defect which I think represents the entry site, because the right side of the frontal bone had separated and had dropped in relation to the left frontal skull. (“A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs”)
-
Your FUBAR attempt at playing forensic pathologist isn't a problem for anybody. We can just ignore you or poke fun at your efforts. Our choice.
-
Your FUBAR attempt at playing forensic pathologist isn't a problem for anybody. We can just ignore you or poke fun at your efforts. Our choice.
This is a clownish, discrediting, and revealing dodge.
No one denies that the autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that ran upward from the EOP to the right eyebrow. No one denies that the autopsy report says nothing about a fragment trail near the top of the head, 15 cm (5.9 inches) above the EOP. No one denies that the autopsy doctors said the entry wound was near the middle of the occipital bone but that the cowlick entry site is in the parietal bone, 1 cm above the lambda. And no one denies that the extant autopsy skull x-rays show no fragment trail from the EOP to the right eyebrow. No one. As in no one.
So how do you explain these facts? Answer: You duck them with another frivolous dodge.
As any honest observer can see, I am actually not "playing forensic pathologist" at all. I am simply pointing out what numerous experts on both sides have discussed on this key issue. If you would ever bother to read the transcripts of Finck, Boswell, and Humes's exchanges with the FPP during their HSCA testimony, you would see that the absence of a fragment trail and wound pattern from the EOP to the right eye was a major, intense point of disagreement and controversy, a dispute that became so severe that at one point Finck actually questioned how the skull x-rays had been authenticated.
I notice you said nothing about Dr. Chesser's comments on the problems that the high fragment trail and the autopsy report's entry site location pose for the lone-gunman theory. FYI, Dr. Chesser is a board-certified neurologist who has not only examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives but has also examined JFK's pre-mortem x-rays at the Kennedy Library in Boston.
-
This is a clownish, discrediting, and revealing dodge.
No one denies that the autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that ran upward from the EOP to the right eyebrow. No one denies that the autopsy report says nothing about a fragment trail near the top of the head, 15 cm (5.9 inches) above the EOP. No one denies that the autopsy doctors said the entry wound was near the middle of the occipital bone but that the cowlick entry site is in the parietal bone, 1 cm above the lambda. And no one denies that the extant autopsy skull x-rays show no fragment trail from the EOP to the right eyebrow. No one. As in no one.
So how do you explain these facts? Answer: You duck them with another frivolous dodge.
I'd be more interested in how you explain the discrepancy. You're the one trying to make the case for a conspiracy. You need to provide that evidence for that.
As any honest observer can see, I am actually not "playing forensic pathologist" at all. I am simply pointing out what numerous experts on both sides have discussed on this key issue. If you would ever bother to read the transcripts of Finck, Boswell, and Humes's exchanges with the FPP during their HSCA testimony, you would see that the absence of a fragment trail and wound pattern from the EOP to the right eye was a major, intense point of disagreement and controversy, a dispute that became so severe that at one point Finck actually questioned how the skull x-rays had been authenticated.
You have identified a disagreement between the autopsy team and the FPP. Now tell us what you think it means and why.
I notice you said nothing about Dr. Chesser's comments on the problems that the high fragment trail and the autopsy report's entry site location pose for the lone-gunman theory. FYI, Dr. Chesser is a board-certified neurologist who has not only examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives but has also examined JFK's pre-mortem x-rays at the Kennedy Library in Boston.
Goody. Now explain what this anomaly proves. That's a step I never see the CTs take. They think it suffices just to identify an anomaly as if that proves anything. If you want to prove something, you need to resolve the conflict. Simply identifying it doesn't prove squat.
-
It is worth noting that in his ARRB interview in 1996, Dr. Humes was shown the lateral JFK autopsy skull x-ray and was asked to identify the EOP-to-right-eyebrow fragment trail described in the autopsy report. After a pause and with an embarrassed look on his face (per Doug Horne, who was present), Humes admitted he could not, and he acknowledged he could see fragments higher on the skull on the lateral x-ray:
Q. I'd like you to see if you could identify where you understand the entrance wound to have been on the skull, looking at this lateral X-ray.
A. Well, back in this area [pointing to the EOP].
Q. You're referring to the very low back of the cranium. . . . Do you see any fragments, stellate or otherwise, that would be consistent with an entry wound in that point?
A. Well, there's no fragments there. There's fragments or what appear to be fragments up higher towards the vertex in this picture. (Deposition of Dr. James Humes, ARRB, February 13, 1996, pp. 216-217)
Humes was asked about the vanishing fragment trail and the rear head entry wound's location because these had already been issues for years. They caused major contention between the autopsy doctors and the HSCA's medical panel (FPP). WC skeptics had understandably cited these issues as raising questions about the authenticity of the autopsy evidence.
In contrast, nearly all lone-gunman theorists have always uncritically and vacuously assumed that the autopsy doctors simply erred in their descriptions of the entry wound and the fragment trail, as if these errors were minor and understandable. A notable exception is Dr. Larry Sturdivan, a former HSCA wound ballistics consultant and physicist. In his 2005 book The JFK Myths, Sturdivan rejects the cowlick entry site and argues that the autopsy doctors were correct in locating the entry wound near the EOP.
Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist who has done numerous optical-density measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays at the National Archives, argues that the 7x2 mm fragment above the right orbit on the x-rays is likely a remnant of the EOP-to-right-eyebrow fragment trail, although no other trace of the trail appears on the x-rays:
The autopsy report describes a fragment trail from the EOP to the right parietal bone to the right supraorbital ridge. This trail is not present in the extant X-rays, but perhaps such a trail did exist before these fragments were removed, i.e., perhaps Humes told the truth in his autopsy report. It is even possible, if not likely, that the 7x2 mm metal fragment above the right orbit was part of that trail. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 92)
Dr. Mantik makes the key point that the 7x2 mm fragment cannot be associated with the high fragment trail:
It [the high fragment trail] is truly inconsistent with the location of the 7x2 mm fragment above JFK’s right eye. . . . This 7x2 mm fragment lies well off the debris trail (Figure 6). (p. 91)
Just keep in mind that if the EOP site is correct, this means, among other things, that the bullet could not have been fired from the sixth-floor window. The WC's experts could only make the EOP site line up with the sixth-floor window by assuming that JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck. No photo or footage shows him leaning anywhere near that far forward when the head shot occurred.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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? ::)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
It is really rather sleazy for you to question Dr. Mantik's integrity.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
I think it is rather dishonest for you to pretend that you agree with anything approaching a substantive portion of Pat Speer's research.
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.
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.
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.
-
So why did you ignore Mark Ulrik's polite requests to share Mantik's supposed research that you referenced ... hmmmm?
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. . . .
Good Lord, man! You posted a snippet from a scientific-style article, with endnote numbers, supposedly posted in a private email chain. When I politely inquired about the availability of the article and its cited sources, you ignored me - but maybe that was just you being your arrogant self.
-
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
You talk like an unserious teenager.
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.
I know this might come as a shock to you, but I don't always read every reply and I don't always respond to all the replies I read. You are posturing to imply that I have somehow lied about Dr. Mantik's views on 9/11. If you'll message me, I can give you his email address, and you can ask him yourself.
The point is you purposely used a dated statement of Dr. Mantik's about 9/11 when you knew that Dr. Mantik has recently been posting DNA evidence against 9/11 Truther nuttiness.
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.
I feel like I'm arguing with a teenager who has problems comprehending English.
Nothing I said in my previous reply suggested I was backing away from those statements, and I don't know how you could claim otherwise. Speer is a college dropout, and, yes, as I said in my two previous replies, his attacks on Mantik's OD research are embarrassingly erroneous, sometimes almost comically so. That's what happens when you take on a genuine scientist on an issue that you don't understand. Again, Speer even says that OD measurements can't be done on metal objects--he says this in a humorous effort to explain away Dr. Mantik's OD measurements of the back-of-head bullet fragments.
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.
Yes, they can. I encourage everyone to read both sides. I think you'll see that Dr. Mantik, always the gentleman, politely proves that Speer has no clue what he is talking about when it comes his optical-density research and how to read the skull x-rays. This isn't even a close call.
https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf
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.
I think this is a dishonest dodge. You either haven't read Speer's online book or you don't want to admit that in truth you agree with almost none of his conclusions about the major JFKA issues.
I agree with about 80% of Speer's conclusions on the major issues in the case. Judging from everything I've seen you say in this forum, I'd say you "might" agree with 15% of his conclusions on the major issues.
In addition, I cite Speer on a number of issues because, as I've said many times, his research on many issues is solid. The only time I've ever seen you cite Speer is to cite his rejection of Mantik's OD research.
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.
Uh-huh. Read: another flimsy dodge. And, BTW, many other experts have agreed with Dr. Mantik's findings, including Dr. Arthur Haus, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Art Snyder, to name a few. You'd know this if you had done a modicum of balanced research. Your baseless claim that "characters like Mantik see things that no one else sees" is further proof of your shallow research and unserious demeanor.
You of all people are in no position to be calling Dr. Mantik a "character." The one and only reason you've grasped at Speer's research is that he has attacked Dr. Mantik's OD research.
For any newcomers who don't know about Dr. Mantik, he is a board-certified radiation oncologist who is also licensed in radiology. In addition, he holds a doctorate in physics and taught physics at the University of Michigan. He has also had several papers involving radiology published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. As a radiation oncologist, he routinely used OD measurements of x-rays to form his diagnoses (he retired a few years ago).
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.
Phew! I am a "crank"?! If anyone here is a crank, it is you. Every single time you've tried to engage me on actual JFKA evidentiary issues, I've chewed you to pieces and proved that you, like John Corbett, don't even have a handle on many of the basics of the case.
I use the terms "magically" and "impossible" to describe Sturdivan's specious trajectory explanation because they absolutely apply. I notice you made no effort to explain how a bullet that penetrated the skull at a downward angle 1 cm above the EOP could have suddenly veered sharply upward. That is Sturdivan's theory. That is how he gets the bullet (1) to hit the EOP site at a downward angle (since he assumes Oswald fired the shot), and (2) to still create any semblance of the WC-HSCA exit wound above the right ear.
Please, do, tell us how that would have worked. I'm assuming, perhaps errantly, that you understand the contrary damage indicated on the autopsy skull x-rays and in the WC's wound ballistics tests, a problem that Sturdivan does not even address.
Just to give you some clue about the problems with Sturdivan's theory, allow me to quote what I say about it in my book A Comforting Lie:
Surely Sturdivan knew that not one of the bullets in the WC’s head-shot ballistics tests veered so markedly, either horizontally or vertically. Surely he knew that brain tissue could not have caused such a drastic change in the bullet’s horizontal and vertical trajectory. And surely he knew there is no way that the high fragment trail could have been made by an FMJ bullet striking the EOP at a downward angle of 15 degrees. (p. 252)
-
Here is Dr. Mantik's website: https://themantikview.org/.
Can you say "self-promoting huckster," boys and girls? "Doug Horne on steroids," perhaps?
The most recent presentation Mantik features on his site was at Fetzer's "False Flags and Conspiracies Conference 2025" just last December: https://falseflagsandconspiraciescon.com/. Ye gods.
The presentation includes a blurry photo of a "CIA photographer in a sailor's cap" that is worthy of our own Jake Maxwell. Ye gods.
No wonder MTG worships at his feet - this guy believes absolutely anything and everything. The JFKA was more complex than the invasion of Normandy.
It all came back to me that I had ordered his most recent book, The Final Analysis, on Kindle. I tried reading it for a day, thinking I would give him a fair shot, and it became one of only three Kindle books (out of hundreds) that I have ever returned for a refund.
Even we unserious teenagers have our standards, dude.
I'll leave it at that. If you find Mantik credible, go for it!
-
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).
Do you understand that if you agree that the rear head entry wound was 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP, as the autopsy report says, then you must acknowledge that the autopsy brain photos cannot be photos of JFK's brain? The HSCA FPP proved this beyond any rational doubt. No bullet entering the head at the EOP site could have missed tearing through the rear part of the right occipital lobe, yet the brain photos show no damage whatsoever in that area. An EOP-site bullet may have been able to barely miss the cerebellum, but it could not have missed the rear part of the right occipital lobe.
Furthermore, even if we assume that the EOP-site bullet barely missed the cerebellum, it should have at least caused some visible bleeding in the cerebellum, as FPP member Dr. George Loquvam pointed out to Finck during Finck's testimony, and Finck had no answer. In fact, let's read Loquvam's exchange with Finck on this key point:
Dr. Loquvam. If a missile had entered at this point, would it have entered the posterior cranial vault and produced subarachnoid hemorrhage in the cerebellar hemisphere?
I have pointed to color picture No. 43 at the point of entrance that Dr. Finck is saying the entrance is and I am referring to the four color photographs of the brain in which I see no subarachnoid hemorrhage other than postmortem.
My question is, if this is the point of entrance, isn't that at the level of the posterior cranial vault where the cerebellar hemispheres lie and would we not see subarachnoid hemorrhage if a slug had torn through there?
Dr. Finck. Not necessarily because you have wounds without subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Dr. Loquvam. You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?
Dr. Finck. I don't know. I cannot answer your question. ("Testimony of Pierre A. Finck," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 97)
Another member of the FPP, Dr. Charles Petty, pointed out the conflict between the EOP site and the undamaged condition of the rear part of both occipital lobes. In addition to noting the "intact" condition of the cerebellum, he pointed out to Humes and Boswell that the brain photos show no damage to the occipital lobes, i.e., the part of the lobes directly behind the EOP. Let's read Dr. Petty's very politely phrased observation about this huge contradiction:
Dr. PETTY. Well we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain, and if this wound were way low, we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes. (7 HSCA 259)
Even a layman can look at diagrams of the brain and the skull and see that the EOP lies directly over the rear part of the right and left occipital lobes. There is just no way on this planet that a bullet entering at the EOP site at a downward and rightward angle could have missed tearing through the rear section of the right occipital lobe.
So, pick your poison: Either admit that the brain photos are fraudulent or repudiate the EOP site. You can't accept the EOP site and still believe the brain photos are authentic.
I explain this fact in more detail in my ongoing thread on the subject:
Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4609.0.html
-
Do you understand that if you agree that the rear head entry wound was 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP, as the autopsy report says, then you must acknowledge that the autopsy brain photos cannot be photos of JFK's brain? The HSCA FPP proved this beyond any rational doubt. No bullet entering the head at the EOP site could have missed tearing through the rear part of the right occipital lobe, yet the brain photos show no damage whatsoever in that area. An EOP-site bullet may have been able to barely miss the cerebellum, but it could not have missed the rear part of the right occipital lobe.
Furthermore, even if we assume that the EOP-site bullet barely missed the cerebellum, it should have at least caused some visible bleeding in the cerebellum, as FPP member Dr. George Loquvam pointed out to Finck during Finck's testimony, and Finck had no answer. In fact, let's read Loquvam's exchange with Finck on this key point:
Dr. Loquvam. If a missile had entered at this point, would it have entered the posterior cranial vault and produced subarachnoid hemorrhage in the cerebellar hemisphere?
I have pointed to color picture No. 43 at the point of entrance that Dr. Finck is saying the entrance is and I am referring to the four color photographs of the brain in which I see no subarachnoid hemorrhage other than postmortem.
My question is, if this is the point of entrance, isn't that at the level of the posterior cranial vault where the cerebellar hemispheres lie and would we not see subarachnoid hemorrhage if a slug had torn through there?
Dr. Finck. Not necessarily because you have wounds without subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Dr. Loquvam. You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?
Dr. Finck. I don't know. I cannot answer your question. ("Testimony of Pierre A. Finck," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 97)
Another member of the FPP, Dr. Charles Petty, pointed out the conflict between the EOP site and the undamaged condition of the rear part of both occipital lobes. In addition to noting the "intact" condition of the cerebellum, he pointed out to Humes and Boswell that the brain photos show no damage to the occipital lobes, i.e., the part of the lobes directly behind the EOP. Let's read Dr. Petty's very politely phrased observation about this huge contradiction:
Dr. PETTY. Well we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain, and if this wound were way low, we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes. (7 HSCA 259)
Even a layman can look at diagrams of the brain and the skull and see that the EOP lies directly over the rear part of the right and left occipital lobes. There is just no way on this planet that a bullet entering at the EOP site at a downward and rightward angle could have missed tearing through the rear section of the right occipital lobe.
So, pick your poison: Either admit that the brain photos are fraudulent or repudiate the EOP site. You can't accept the EOP site and still believe the brain photos are authentic.
I explain this fact in more detail in my ongoing thread on the subject:
Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4609.0.html
Just bumping this thread to show that the WC apologists here clearly cannot explain why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the autopsy skull x-rays, nor can they explain how the brain photos can be authentic if they accept the EOP site since the FPP proved beyond any rational doubt that the brain photos--if authentic--categorically prove that no bullet could have entered the skull at the EOP site.
Regarding the low fragment trail, there are only two options:
1. The autopsy doctors, one of whom was a board-certified forensic pathologist, were so unbelievably incompetent that they made the astonishing blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail that is at least 2 inches above the EOP, that has a downward trajectory, that goes nowhere near either of the proposed rear head entry sites, and that is concentrated in the right-frontal region--that they mistook this fragment trail for a trail that started at the EOP, that ended just behind the right eyebrow, and that had an upward trajectory.
2. The autopsy doctors fabricated the low fragment trail because there was no fragment trail that they could associate with the EOP site.
BTW, as mentioned earlier, the autopsy doctors did not say a word about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report, even though a layman can easily see it on the right lateral skull x-ray.
Getting back to the issue of the EOP site vs. the cowlick site, Dr. Joseph N. Riley, a highly regarded neuroanatomist, concluded in the 1990s that the EOP site is valid and that the cowlick site is ruled out by the fact that the autopsy photos show intact brain at the cowlick site. Dr. Riley also noted that the autopsy photos show two separate, unconnected wound paths through the brain, proving that two bullets must have hit the brain.
"What Struck John," by Dr. Joseph N. Riley
https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html
-
Keep bumping. That way you won't pollute this forum with more nonsense.
-
Keep bumping. That way you won't pollute this forum with more nonsense.
In other words, you are once again declining to engage in serious, credible discussion about clear evidence that refutes your version of the shooting.
For any newcomers, just a word about this "John Corbett": He's read almost nothing on the JFK case, routinely condemns scholarly research he hasn't even read, doesn't even know what his own side's leading advocates have said, has published nothing on the case, hosts no website on the case, and has been caught making numerous inexcusable errors but will never admit it.
-
In other words, you are once again declining to engage in serious, credible discussion about clear evidence that refutes your version of the shooting.
To do that, I would need a serious, credible person to discuss the evidence with. Do you know of someone?
-
Another reminder that lone-gunman theorists here cannot explain the vanishing low fragment trail, which the autopsy report said ran from the EOP to the the right eyebrow (the supraorbital ridge). There are only three options:
One, the autopsy doctors committed the unbelievable blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail (1) that started a whopping 5.9 inches (15 cm) lower, (2) that was in a different bone of the skull (parietal vs. occipital), and (3) that ran at a downward angle instead of an upward angle from the back of the head, even though they had the EOP, the lambdoid suture, and the lambda as reference points (keep in mind they reflected the scalp so they could examine the wound in the skull). A first-year medical student would not make such a mind-boggling blunder.
Two, the autopsy doctors saw no low fragment trail. They saw no trail that ran from the EOP to the right eyebrow but falsely said they did (1) because they wanted to strengthen the case for the EOP entry site, (2) because the high fragment trail did not align with the EOP site, and (3) because there was no wound on the back of the head that they could associate with the high fragment trail.
Three, the low fragment trail was removed from the autopsy x-rays, or its fragments were removed from the skull and the skull was then x-rayed again, because some of the people involved in the medical cover-up recognized that the low fragment trail, like the EOP entry site, would pose unsolvable problems for the lone-gunman theory.
I lean toward the third option. The third option would explain the 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm fragments seen near the right orbit on the right lateral skull x-ray. Those fragments are far removed from the high fragment trail. There are no fragments below them or to their left on the lateral x-ray, and they are at least 1 inch below the high fragment trail. How did they get there? They could be the remnant of the low fragment trail, which Humes said went to a point at the top part of the right orbit (the supraorbital ridge).
At least some WC apologists understand that it is wildly unlikely that three pathologists, one of whom was a board-certified forensic pathologist, could have mistaken an EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail for the high fragment trail when they examined the lateral skull x-rays, especially since they reexamined the skull x-rays in 1966 for five hours and said the x-rays and the photos confirmed the autopsy report's findings.
But, WC apologists also don't want to consider the possibility that the autopsy doctors fabricated the low fragment trail, and they of course know that the autopsy doctors said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report, and that they again said nothing about it after they reexamined the skull x-rays for five hours in 1966.
Yet, WC apologists find even more acceptable the possibility that the low fragment trail was removed from the skull x-rays and/or from the skull itself.
-
Another reminder that lone-gunman theorists here cannot explain the vanishing low fragment trail, which the autopsy report said ran from the EOP to the the right eyebrow (the supraorbital ridge). There are only three options:
I don't speak for other LNs but my guess is they don't care about your perceived problems any more than I do.
-
I don't speak for other LNs but my guess is they don't care about your perceived problems any more than I do.
"Perceived problems"?! Your comment is further proof that you are an uninformed, unserious troll.
Umm, the HSCA FPP certainly saw this as a huge problem. Remember? They hammered the autopsy doctors on the fact that the existing autopsy materials, especially the alleged brain photos, show no wound path, not even a theoretically possible wound path, from the EOP site to the right orbit. I've pointed this out to you several times, but you just keep ignoring it--because you can't explain it.
Just try to fathom the absurdity of your position: You're saying it's no big deal, no problem at all, that three autopsy pathologists, after viewing the skull x-rays at length during the autopsy, and after consulting with the autopsy radiologist during the autopsy, failed to mention a glaringly obvious fragment trail near the top of the skull and claimed to see a much lower EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail that does not appear on the autopsy skull x-rays.
"Happens all the time," right? Was the radiologist blind too?
What makes these stunning problems even more severe and revealing is that the autopsy doctors reviewed the autopsy x-rays and photos for five hours in 1966 and declared that those materials supported their original findings.
To make these problems even more extreme, we have the fact that the alleged autopsy brain photos, if authentic, absolutely rule out a bullet striking anywhere in the righthand side of the occipital bone, much less 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to right of the EOP, because they show no damage whatsoever to the rear area of the right occipital lobe. In fact, they show no damage to the left occipital lobe either.
Yet, Dr. Gerald McDonnel told the HSCA FPP that the skull x-rays show the bullet penetrated in the "right occipital bone." One would assume that a diagnostic radiologist such as Dr. McDonnel could easily tell the difference between the occipital bone and the parietal bone, especially since they are separated by the lambdoid suture. The autopsy doctors doggedly insisted they saw and handled the entry wound near the EOP. The autopsy photographer, who took the photo showing the rear head entry wound, said the wound was near the EOP and not in the cowlick. Several witnesses at the autopsy said the entry wound was where the autopsy doctors placed it. Your side's most-qualified wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, says the entry wound was near the EOP and not in the cowlick.
Okay, then surely you have enough basic intelligence and reasoning ability to understand that you need to explain how a bullet could have entered the EOP site, or entered anywhere in the occiput, without tearing through the right or left occipital lobes after it entered the skull. This was the crucial issue that the FPP hammered the autopsy doctors on, and they had no answer for it because they were unwilling to question the authenticity of the brain photos.
-
"Perceived problems"?! Your comment is further proof that you are an uninformed, unserious troll.
And still nobody cares.
-
And still nobody cares.
Translation: "I still don't care, or at least I say I don't care, because I have no idea how to explain the evidence that you're presenting. I know it's ludicrous to claim that three autopsy pathologists, plus the radiologist, 'missed' the high fragment trail or mistook it for the low fragment trail. Of course I know that's preposterous, and I know there's not even a remotely plausible innocent explanation for the fact that there's no low fragment trail on the skull x-rays, but I can't admit these things without demolishing my position on the JFK case.
"And, yes, I know the FPP said the brain photos undeniably refute the EOP entry site, and I know the EOP site must be wrong if the brain photos are authentic, and I know the skull x-rays show far more missing brain than the tiny amount of missing brain shown in the brain photos, but I don't dare admit that the brain photos are fake, even though the autopsy photographer said he did not take them. Come on. We both know that I don't dare admit these things because this would demolish my position on the JFK case."
-
Translation: "I still don't care, or at least I say don't care, because I have no idea how to explain the evidence that you're presenting.
I'm not presenting the medical evidence. That's your gig. You did write in the last line of your previous post in this thread the following:
"Notice that the WC believers who are posting in this thread are making no attempt to explain the evidence I'm presenting."
So once again you are trying to shift the burden to ME to explain the assertions YOU made.
The simple fact of the matter which I have explained to you many times is that I am not qualified to interpret the medical evidence from the autopsy which is why I don't try. I leave it to the qualified people to do that and then cite the findings of those people. You aren't qualified to interpret the medical evidence either but that doesn't stop you from trying. .
-
I'm not presenting the medical evidence. That's your gig. You did write in the last line of your previous post in this thread the following:
"Notice that the WC believers who are posting in this thread are making no attempt to explain the evidence I'm presenting."
So once again you are trying to shift the burden to ME to explain the assertions YOU made.
The simple fact of the matter which I have explained to you many times is that I am not qualified to interpret the medical evidence from the autopsy which is why I don't try. I leave it to the qualified people to do that and then cite the findings of those people. You aren't qualified to interpret the medical evidence either but that doesn't stop you from trying.
So once again you're floating this phony argument and ignoring the fact that these are not just my assertions but the assertions of many medical experts, including the FPP, the autopsy doctors, and the ARRB's forensic experts.
It's not just little ole me saying that the skull x-rays show no trace of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (Humes, the entire FPP, the Clark Panel, the RC medical panel, and the ARRB's forensic experts, etc., etc.).
It's not just little ole me saying the brain photos, if authentic, categorically refute the EOP site (the FPP, Mantik, Aguilar, Chesser, Henkelmann, etc.).
It's not just little ole me saying that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain missing (Hodges, Humes, Mantik, Chesser, Aguilar, Lattimer, etc.) but that the autopsy brain photos show only "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue (Baden, Bugliosi, etc.).
You don't need a medical degree to understand that either the EOP site is valid or the brain photos are fraudulent, that either the skull x-rays are fraudulent or the brain photos are fraudulent, that it's wildly implausible to theorize that three autopsy pathologists and the radiologist "missed" the high fragment trail or mistook it for a fragment trail 5 inches lower and in a different part of the skull, that it's preposterous to suggest that three autopsy pathologists and the autopsy photographer mistook an entry wound in the parietal bone, 1 cm above the lambda, for a wound 1 cm above the EOP, nearly 4 inches below the rear edge of the parietal bone, when they had the EOP and lambda as reference points, when they reflected the scalp, and when they examined both sides of the wound in the skull after they reflected the scalp.
-
So once again you're floating this phony argument and ignoring the fact that these are not just my assertions but the assertions of many medical experts, including the FPP, the autopsy doctors, and the ARRB's forensic experts.
It's not just little ole me saying that the skull x-rays show no trace of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report (Humes, the entire FPP, the Clark Panel, the RC medical panel, and the ARRB's forensic experts, etc., etc.).
It's not just little ole me saying the brain photos, if authentic, categorically refute the EOP site (the FPP, Mantik, Aguilar, Chesser, Henkelmann, etc.).
It's not just little ole me saying that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain missing (Hodges, Humes, Mantik, Chesser, Aguilar, Lattimer, etc.) but that the autopsy brain photos show only "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue (Baden, Bugliosi, etc.).
You don't need a medical degree to understand that either the EOP site is valid or the brain photos are fraudulent, that either the skull x-rays are fraudulent or the brain photos are fraudulent, that it's wildly implausible to theorize that three autopsy pathologists and the radiologist "missed" the high fragment trail or mistook it for a fragment trail 5 inches lower and in a different part of the skull, that it's preposterous to suggest that three autopsy pathologists and the autopsy photographer mistook an entry wound in the parietal bone, 1 cm above the lambda, for a wound 1 cm above the EOP, nearly 4 inches below the rear edge of the parietal bone, when they had the EOP and lambda as reference points, when they reflected the scalp, and when they examined both sides of the wound in the skull after they reflected the scalp.
You seem to jump back and forth from criticizing the FPP to embracing their findings. Which is it?
There is one thing they all agree on and which you reject. JFK was shot twice from behind and there is no medical evidence of him being shot from any other direction. But I suppose we should dismiss what all these qualified people have to say and accept your amateurish analysis of the medical evidence.