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. 
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.pdfI 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)
