Because Dr. Cairns was one of the only three pathologists who actually got to handle the fragment and to study it up close. Because the two other pathologists who handled and studied the fragment agreed that the fragment was occipital bone. Because Dr. Mantik has established that it was occipital bone, and he notes that there is actually support for this placement on the skull x-rays. Because dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, said there was a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. Because the wound diagrams drawn for the HSCA and the ARRB show a large wound in the back of the head. Etc., etc., etc.
I notice you simply ignored the points that I quoted from Dr. Mantik's article "The Harper Fragment Revisited."
You "know" no such thing. You clearly have not read any of the scholarly scientific analyses on the fragment that show it was occipital bone.
LOL!!! Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that does not mention the 6.5 mm fragment that later magically appeared on the skull x-rays? Are you talking about the "autopsy report" that says there was no frontal bone missing, when we now know that the two outside experts hired by the HSCA FPP both said the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone? The HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Thomas Canning of NASA, also said he saw frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. (And Dr. Mantik has confirmed that the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone.)
By the way, Dr. Finck told General Bloomberg that frontal bone was missing, and Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that frontal bone was missing. The diagram that Boswell drew during the autopsy also shows frontal bone missing. But, gee, the "autopsy report" says nothing about missing frontal bone--perhaps because the autopsy photos that show Kennedy's face show no frontal bone missing, nor do they show any visible damage to the frontal bone area.
Ignoring these canyon-sized contradictions and impossibilities in the autopsy evidence won't make them go away.
You still have not read any of the links I've provided on the hard scientific evidence that the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered, have you? Are you ever going to take a stab at explaining why there is no frontal damage to JFK's head in the autopsy photos that show his face when the skull x-rays show missing frontal bone? Are you ever going to explain the optical density measurements, done by three medical doctors with backgrounds in radiology, that show that a patch was placed over the right-rear part of the head in an effort to conceal the large wound there?
Are you ever going to explain the dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, who saw the large right-rear head wound--were they all "mistaken," even the mortician who prepared the skull and the rest of the body for burial?
The Zapruder film shows an explosion occurring to the right of JFK's right ear, damage that is nowhere to be seen in the autopsy photos that show JFK's face and the side of his head. And would you care to explain the round black spot that covers the right rear of JFK's head for several frames until that part of the head is no longer visible? What's going on with that? Jackie said she was holding the "back" of her husband's head together. Clint Hill, who saw the large head wound from less than 4 feet away, and who saw it again at Bethesda, said it was in the right-rear part of the head.
Here we go again: You go running to pseudo-research sites like McAdams' website but you don't bother to check any sites that present an opposing view. No, it is not a "fact" that the Harper fragment was found "well ahead of where the limo was" when the Z313 head shot occurred. This claim is not even close to being a "fact." For starters, according to the first two Dealey Plaza reenactment surveys, the fragment was actually found well behind the location of the car at the time of the Z313 head shot.
Dear Mike T. Griffith,
Why do you call McAdams a "pseudo research site"?
When it comes to the JFK assassination, how do you define "research," anyway?
How about compiling facts that other people have already researched and proved, and sharing them in a comprehensive way?
How about rebutting tinfoil conspiracy theories? Isn't that worthwile?
Do you consider yourself a "JFK assassination researcher"?
How so?
-- MWT
