The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail: An Unsolvable Problem for WC Apologists

[Lance Payette]

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.

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

[Lance Payette]

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. 

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.

[Mark Ulrik]

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.