JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories

[Michael T. Griffith]

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0120a.htm

"The Harper fragment photographs show it as a roughly trapezoidal piece, 7 centimeters by 5.5 centimeters in size, coming mainly from the upper middle third of the right parietal bone. Near its short upper edge vascular foramina on the inside and a faint irregular line on the outside indicate saggital suture. Its posterior inferior pointed edge appears to fit the crack in the posterior section of the right parietal [bone] and its slightly wavy lower border can fit the upper edge of the loose lower section of right parietal [bone]. Its upper short border, on the left of the midline near vertex, may meet the left margin of the gap. Behind it there appears to be a large gap and in front a narrow one." -- Dr. J. Lawrence Angel

Apparently you didn't bother to read any of the links I provided. Dr. Mantik deals with Dr. Angel's analysis of the Harper Fragment in his long article "The Medical Evidence Decoded." Why don't you read Dr. Mantik's section on the Harper Fragment and then deal with the evidence he cites for its being occipital bone?

And I notice you just brushed aside the fact that the consensus of the doctors who actually handled and examined the Harper Fragment, including one who was the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital in Dallas (Dr. Cairns), said the fragment was occipital bone. These doctors got to handle the fragment and examine it up-close.

I also notice you ignored all the eyewitness accounts, some of which include diagrams, that the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head, which, of course, includes the occiput.

I further notice that you did not address the optical density measurements that prove that someone attempted to conceal the large right-rear wound in the autopsy skull x-rays by putting a graphical patch over it.

[Tim Nickerson]

Apparently you didn't bother to read any of the links I provided. Dr. Mantik deals with Dr. Angel's bogus analysis of the Harper Fragment in his long article "The Medical Evidence Decoded." Why don't you read Dr. Mantik's section on the Harper Fragment and then deal with the evidence he cites for its being occipital bone?

And I notice you just brushed aside the fact that the consensus of the doctors who actually handled and examined the Harper Fragment, including one who was the chief of pathology at Methodist Hospital in Dallas (Dr. Cairns), said the fragment was occipital bone. These doctors got to handle the fragment and examine it up-close.

I also notice you ignored all the eyewitness accounts, some of which include diagrams, that the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head, which, of course, includes the occiput.

I further notice that you did not address the optical density measurements that prove that someone attempted to conceal the large right-rear wound in the autopsy skull x-rays by putting a graphical patch over it.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper1.htm

[Michael T. Griffith]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper1.htm

If you could muster up the courage to read Dr. Mantik's analysis of the Harper fragment, you would discover that he answers the arguments presented in the two articles you cited, especially Dr. Riley's arguments. Here's the link to his article again, for your convenience:

https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf

Dr. Mantik provides diagrams relating to the fragment on pages 9 and 10, and his discussion on the fragment begins on page 67.

One of Dr. Mantik's other articles on the Harper fragment is "The Harper Fragment Revisited" (2014). Here is a portion of what Dr. Mantik says in the article:

Most reconstructions (especially the parietal ones) with HF [Harper fragment] place the metallic smear near an exit site, even though the smear is on the outside.[9] That seems odd, because an entry site should normally lie on the outside. By citing "inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull,"[10] Cairns must have meant either (1) vascular grooves (i.e., grooves in occipital bone; in gross disagreement with Riley), or (2) the sulcus for the superior sagittal sinus (which would, by definition, mean occipital bone). Riley did not address Cairns's provocative challenge to his conclusion. Likewise, Riley did not deal with Cairns' comment that HF suggested an entry wound. On the other hand, if HF had been parietal bone, then this smear would have lain near the skull vertex (Figure 3). Since an entry site near the vertex seems unlikely (to nearly everyone),[11] Riley would seem to regard the metallic smear as an exit site, even though the smear is on the outside, and even though there is no smear on the inside. The HSCA took the same curious approach (see below). . . .

The HSCA did address HF and did propose a skull reconstruction. In fact, since Michael Baden, M.D., and J. Lawrence Angel, Ph.D., disagreed with one another, the HSCA offered two contradictory reconstructions.[14] However, neither opinion supported an occipital origin for HF.[15] Angel, Curator of Physical Anthropology for the Smithsonian Institution, after viewing the photographs (the HSCA did not view the HF X-ray), described it as roughly trapezoidal, 7 x 5.5 cm, and coming mainly from the upper middle third of the right parietal bone. Angel saw a suture line inside of HF, which he identified as part of the sagittal suture (Figure 3).[16] That he saw a suture line is interesting; in particular, he thereby corroborated Cairns's recollection of a "suture." In his reconstruction, however, Angel left a gap between HF and the triangular fragment[17] (the latter is red in Figure 3); according to Angel, one edge of the triangular fragment comprised part of the coronal suture; and he placed that fragment anterior to that suture. . . .

Another analysis was offered by Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D., who is an expert in neuroanatomy. His brief paper[23] concluded that HF was right parietal, thereby agreeing with Angel (and with the HSCA). Riley emphasized two generic features of skull bones: (1) vascular grooves and (2) parietal foramina. The foramina are tiny holes (like dark dimples) in the bone that transmit blood vessels perpendicular to the skull surface. The grooves are shallow linear indentations that carry blood vessels parallel to the surface; Riley claimed that these two features are characteristic of parietal bone, but that "...occipital bone does not show a pattern of vascular grooving." Riley also asserted that foramina occurred "...only in parietal bone." (Based on a survey of many anatomy textbooks, and on my authentic human skull, these two arguments are both refuted below.) Riley noted an additional feature that, in his opinion, excluded an occipital site: the absence of deep grooves on HF for two specific, large blood vessels (the transverse sinus and the superior sagittal sinus). However, since the transverse sinus is from the lower occiput, that identification is quite irrelevant. That is because, in my reconstruction, HF is from the upper occiput (as I argue further below).

But the sulcus (or groove) for the superior sagittal sinus may actually be visible on HF (Figures 1 and 30B). Riley did not specifically address that possibility. Finally, Riley emphasized that parietal bone is characterized by a relatively smooth inner surface, mild curvature, and relatively uniform thickness; all of which he saw in HF. However, he did not address the likelihood that the Dallas pathologists [Cairns, Noteboom, and Harper] were keenly aware of all of these issues. I would also emphasize that they had a major advantage over subsequent observers (including Riley). After all, they could see, in three dimensions, the authentic curvature of the bone itself and did not need to speculate from photographs.

But what images did Riley employ in his analysis? He stated that he had obtained copies of the HF photographs from Mary Ferrell,[24] which permitted him to reach one fundamental conclusion. According to Riley, his photographs (supposedly taken by Cairns) matched those used by the HSCA, thus ruling out the possibility of mistaken identity. More importantly though, via many anatomy citations, we shall refute Riley's two key opinions. (http://www.patspeer.com/rare-files)

As I have noted, the fact that the Harper fragment is occipital bone corresponds with the numerous eyewitness accounts from people who saw a large wound in the right-rear part of Kennedy's head. Some of those witnesses drew diagrams of the wound for the HSCA and/or the ARRB, and, as I've pointed out, we now have those diagrams. One of those witnesses was the mortician, Tom Robinson, who prepared the body for burial after the autopsy. Needless to say, Robinson got a long, hands-on look at the large head wound.

Finally, you might also read Dr. Michael Chesser's discussion on the hard scientific evidence that the autopsy skull x-rays were altered partly in an attempt to conceal the right-rear exit wound. Dr. Chesser specializes in neurology and neurophysiology. Here is the PDF version of his copiously illustrated presentation:

https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf

Another medical doctor who has found evidence of tampering in the autopsy materials is Dr. Gary Aguilar, who has been allowed to examine the autopsy photos and x-rays at the National Archives. Here is one of Dr. Aguilar's articles on evidence of tampering in the autopsy materials:

https://web.archive.org/web/20171114031943/http://www.jfkhistory.com/aguilar.html

[Jerry Freeman]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

From that article...

Billy Harper, who discovered the piece of bone when he was in Dealey Plaza on November 23rd taking pictures, took the fragment to his uncle, a Dr. Jack C. Harper, and Dr. Harper took the bone to Methodist Hospital where is was examined by Dr. A. B. Cairns, who was chief pathologist. Cairns opinion was that "the bone specimen looked like it came from the occipital region of the skull." Conspiracy interpretation of source of Harper fragment

Conspiracy books ever since have quoted Cairns, and used his assessment as evidence of a frontal shot exiting the rear of the head. Author Josiah Thompson, in Six Seconds in Dallas, after citing Cairns, notes that:

    It is difficult to understand how a shot from the rear could drive a piece of the occipital bone 25 feet to the left of the vehicles's path. It is not so difficult to understand how a shot from the right front exploding through the rear of the skull could produce precisely that effect. (p. 101)

A graphic from Robert Groden's book The Killing of a President (right) shows a typical conspiracist interpretation of the fragment.

But suppose Cairns was wrong? The Warren Commission failed to deal with this issue. However by 1977, when the House Select Committee on Assassinations began its work, the existence of the bone and its possible importance were well-known. The Committee's Forensic Pathology Panel studied the two photos of the fragment made at Methodist Hospital (Warren Commission Document 1395).

But suppose Cairns was correct? And the Warren Commission did not "fail to deal with the issue"----They just ignored it! Just like they ignored Seth Kantor's report that he saw Ruby at Parkland...just like they ignored Roger Craig's report that he saw [who he thought was Oswald] coming down the knoll and get into a vehicle...Just like they ignored Arnold Rowland who described a gunman lurking in a window on the west side of the sixth floor...Just like they ignored any other witness whose testimony conflicted with the Oswald did it all alone conclusion.

[Michael T. Griffith]

From that article...But suppose Cairns was correct? And the Warren Commission did not "fail to deal with the issue"----They just ignored it! Just like they ignored Seth Kantor's report that he saw Ruby at Parkland...just like they ignored Roger Craig's report that he saw [who he thought was Oswald] coming down the knoll and get into a vehicle...Just like they ignored Arnold Rowland who described a gunman lurking in a window on the west side of the sixth floor...Just like they ignored any other witness whose testimony conflicted with the Oswald did it all alone conclusion.

And it should be noted that we from WC FBI files that the FBI interviewed Dr. Cairns and that he had told the FBI that the Harper fragment was occipital bone.

The WC did not ignore Craig's or Kantor's statements. They essentially accused Craig of lying and said Kantor was mistaken. They took Jack Ruby's word over Kantor's!

[Jerry Freeman]

The WC did not ignore Craig's or Kantor's statements. They essentially accused Craig of lying and said Kantor was mistaken. They took Jack Ruby's word over Kantor's!

Neither one is mentioned in the final Report ...neither is Arnold.
Ruby just told the WC that he was not at Parkland. He merely responds 'no' to nearly 90 questions--
 https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-17.html
Now...the devoted followers of the WC here do call everybody a liar and everything else that subscribe not to the hang it on Oswald mantra.

[Tim Nickerson]

From that article...But suppose Cairns was correct? And the Warren Commission did not "fail to deal with the issue"----They just ignored it! Just like they ignored Seth Kantor's report that he saw Ruby at Parkland...just like they ignored Roger Craig's report that he saw [who he thought was Oswald] coming down the knoll and get into a vehicle...Just like they ignored Arnold Rowland who described a gunman lurking in a window on the west side of the sixth floor...Just like they ignored any other witness whose testimony conflicted with the Oswald did it all alone conclusion.

Why suppose that Cairns was correct when we know for a fact that he was not? Not only do we have the autopsy report that tells us that he was incorrect, we have the autopsy photos, autopsy X-Rays, and the Zapruder film that we can view for ourselves. We also have the fact the the fragment was found well ahead of where the limo was at the time of the head shot.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Neither one is mentioned in the final Report ...neither is Arnold.

The WC allowed Roger Craig to testify (6 H 260-273), but it rejected his account. Decker falsely claimed that Craig was never in the office with Oswald and never spoke with Oswald.

Ruby just told the WC that he was not at Parkland. He merely responds 'no' to nearly 90 questions--
 https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-17.html

The WC allowed Kantor to testify (15 H 84-96), but it accepted Ruby's denial about being at Parkland Hospital on 11/22.
 

Now...the devoted followers of the WC here do call everybody a liar and everything else that subscribe not to the hang it on Oswald mantra.

Yeap, WC apologists have been doing that for a long time. [/size]