Umm, if you had read any of the articles I linked for you, you would already know this. Anyway, the two other pathologists were Dr. Harper and Dr. Noteboom. They and Dr. Cairns had the huge advantage of being able to handle the Harper fragment. They did not have to guess about its contour and curvature from photos. All three of them were pathologists. Dr. Cairns was the chief pathologist at a hospital in Dallas. All three of them said the fragment was occipital bone.
You claim that Drs Notebloom and Harper were both pathologists but I've yet to find any bios or curriculum vitae's of theirs that shows what their specialties were. Also, where can we read their statements on the fragment?
Yes, he has, but you can't even gather up the nerve to read his detailed analysis of the fragment. And I notice that you once again declined to comment on Dr. Mantik's points in the quote from his article "The Harper Fragment Revisited." Since you have ignored them several times now, allow me to quote them again to you:
Has not.
You have sunk to a new level of silliness with this claim. Most of the medical doctors who have seriously studied the JFK case and who are still active in it take Dr. Mantik very seriously. You guys have no expert who can match Dr. Mantik's rare level of qualifications. You will use a quack and fraud like Dr. Lattimer, a urologist who was caught faking or misrepresenting test data several times, but you don't want to read the research of Dr. Mantik, who holds a PhD in physics from the University of Wisconsin, who did a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University, who earned his MD from the University of Michigan and did his residency at USC, who taught radiation oncology at the Loma Linda University medical school, who has had numerous articles on radiology and one on physics published in peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals, and who still works in the field of radiation oncology all over the country as an affiliate of the University of Pittsburgh's Department of Radiation Oncology.
Oh come on. Mantik isn't even a radiologist. You slur Dr Lattimer as being a quack when that label is probably morely aptly applied to Mantik.
Wow, what an awesome resume to back up your claim of certainty about the Harper fragment! !
You want to talk resumes? Have you seen the resumes of Roland Zavada, Dr. Randy Robertson, Harry C. Andrews, Richard J. Blackwell, Thomas N. Canning, Robert Chiralo, David B. Einsendrath, Ronald Francis, William K. Hartmann, Bob R. Hunt, Donald H. Janney, Ellis Kerley, Cecil W. Kirk, Charles J. Leontis, C.S. McCamy, Gerald M. McDonnel, Everett Merritt, Paul G. Roetling, Frank Scott, Robert H. Selzer, Bennet Sherman, Philip N. Slater, Clyde C. Snow, George W. Stroke, and Dr J. Lawrence Angel?
LOL!!! Uh, the 6.5 mm fragment is not "just above the right eye." It's on the back of the head. Holy cow, you are decades behind the information curve.
And why oh why oh why would Humes have omitted from the autopsy report any mention one of the two largest fragments on the x-rays, a fragment that just happened to be 6.5 mm in size (gosh, what a coincidence!), if he had seen this fragment on the x-rays that he took and examined on the night of the autopsy? Why?
The 6.5 mm is "just above the right eye." And as I pointed out, Humes et al did not omit it from the autopsy report. It's the 7 mm x 2 mm fragment.
"Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge. From the surface of the disrupted cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.”https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md3/html/Image4.htm Let's look at the following article by Mantik:
https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JFK-Autopsy-X-Rays-Mantik.pdfIt is copyrighted so I'll refrain from using his graphics. I'll just duplicate them myself. Looking at his first two images:
He maintains that the higher fragment, the one high in the forehead, is the 7 mm x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed. But zooming in on the lateral view we can see that that higher fragment looks to be imbedded in the frontal skull bone. That effectively rules it out as being the larger one that Humes removed. From Humes' WC testimony;
Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.
Mr. SPECTER - How large was that fragment, Dr. Humes?
Commander HUMES - I refer to my notes for the measurements of that fragment.
I find in going back to my report, sir, that we found, in fact, two small fragments in this approximate location. The larger of these measured 7 by 2 mm., the smaller 3 by 1 mm.Are you ever going to address the scientific finding that the 6.5 mm fragment image was added to the x-rays, that it is clearly an artifact, as even the HSCA's Larry SPersonivan has acknowledged?[/size]
SPersonivan believes that the fragment was an artifact but he does not believe that it was added to the x-rays. He's wrong about it being an artifact.
I already provided a link to a detailed article on this very issue, which you obviously did not bother to read. Are you just too terrified to read anything that you know will challenge what you desperately want to believe about Kennedy's death? Here is the link again:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
It's by the late John Hunt. His stuff is hard to read because he was such an arrogant sort with very limited critical thinking ability. I'll give it a read though.
size=10pt]HUH???!!! Neither the WC nor the HSCA FPP claimed that the bullet exited "above the right eye." They denied there was any frontal bone missing at all. The HSCA FPP claimed there was no missing frontal bone even though two of their outside experts told them there was considerable frontal bone missing in the skull x-rays. The FPP said the bullet exited on the front edge of the right parietal bone, placing the exit point on the coronal suture several centimeters above the right pterion, near the right stephanion. The WC, repeating the autopsy doctors, said the bullet exited in the middle of the right parietal bone (see CE 388 for the WC's own diagram). [/size]
Well, the exit was considerably above the right eye. But above the right eye nevertheless.The HSCA FPP placed the exit where the parietal bone meets the frontal. There was no significant amount of frontal bone missing.
Oh, yes, of course. They were all "mistaken," even though their accounts independently describe the same head wound as it was seen at three different locations. Sure. Mass hallucination, right?
Many of them admitted that they had been mistaken. What about those who reported that there was no large wound in the back of the head? Including those who actually performed the forensic examination of the body. Were they all mistaken?
So you're just going to keep ignoring all the hard scientific evidence that these materials have been altered? The autopsy materials don't even agree with themselves. Are you going to address the fact that autopsy photo F8 shows bone missing from the occiput and from the rear part of the right parietal bone? Are you going to address the optical density measurements that prove that someone placed a patch on the relevant skull x-rays over the area of the right-rear part of the skull? By the way, two other medical doctors with expertise in radiology have confirmed those optical density measurements.
I'm going with the hard scientific evidence. You're the one who is ignoring it. You are putting your faith in the opinion of a "wannabe radiologist" who is making absolute conclusions on things seen in x-rays that were never intended to be used for such. The X-Ray machine was even outdated at the time and it was only being used to try and locate any bullet(s) that might not have exited. The X-Rays are poor quality. They were not even near the best that the machine could produce. Custer and Reed must have been under considerable stress. So, one can forgive them for producing substandard images by even the standard of the piece of crap machine itself. Optical density measurements cannot be anywhere accurately made with those X-Rays.
I notice you said nothing about the fact that Boswell and Finck both stated that frontal bone was missing and the fact that this is nowhere to be found in the autopsy report. Why do you suppose Humes omitted the missing frontal bone from the autopsy report?
Neither Boswell nor Finck mentioned in their WC testimonies that frontal bone was missing and they both signed the autopsy report.
Then you are legally blind or can't bring yourself to admit what is plainly visible.
The very back of Kennedy's head cannot be made out with any clarity for more than just a few frames. But the lack of clarity is not unique to just his head. The backs of the heads of the others in the limo are "blacked out" as well.
LOL! Dude, I guess you just don't realize that Cranor's point is that the location that Harper told her was impossible? Are you saying that the fragment was blown 100 feet? Did you read this before you copied and pasted it?! According to the FBI, Harper told the interviewing agents that he found the fragment "25 feet south of the spot where President Kennedy was shot," which does not tell us whether it was behind or in front of the limo's location. The fact that the FBI agents did not bother to ask Harper whether the spot was southwest or southeast of the limo is suspicious, or, more likely, Harper did specify this, said southeast, and the agents did not record it.
While the location that Harper told her was improbable, his placing it that far forward it does indicate that the fragment was found considerably forward of where the limo was at the time of the head shot.
I notice you ignored my point that the first two reenactment surveys put the limousine well in front of the fragment at the time of the head shot.[/size]
The first two reenactment surveys were done on Nov 25, 1963 and Nov 27, 1963. Was Harper consulted prior to or during those surveys?
