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.pdfBTW, 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.
Recent Posts
