Search the Community

I just published an article by my dear friend, Milicent Cranor, on my main website. As many of you know, Pat Speer has been critical of the work done by Dr's Mantik and Chesser. Please read this article and come to your own conclusions. ​PatSpeer.com: Fact Check

I have just published a new article by Cervantes [pen name] on my main website. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer: A Sorrowful Knight Errant in the Land of "Education"

A Response to Recent Comments on the JFK Education Forum 12-12-2015 David W. Mantik 1. Did I view the (purported) original JFK X-rays at NARA? Answer: I have often affirmed that I did; my optical density data derive from those images. Here are supporting clues (that I saw NARA’S “originals”). A. The so-called “burn” marks were highly wrinkled (i.e., three dimensional)—quite different from how they would appear in a copy film (i.e., they would be two dimensional). B. The pencil line (presumably placed by Ebersole) was evident on only one side of the right lateral X-ray (that’s the image in the public record). That is proof that that film had not been copied since the pencil line was placed. C. The 6.5 mm fake object exhibits the phantom image effect, i.e., smaller objects are visible inside it. If this film were to be copied, such a double exposure effect would not occur. Dr. Michael Chesser notes that, on the HSCA X-rays (that he saw, but I did not), the 6.5 mm image is uniformly bright (transparent). That is the expected outcome for a copied image. It is also very important to note that Michael Chesser also observed at least two metal fragments inside the 6.5 mm object—which further confirms that we saw the same X-rays. D. The edges of the skull films (in many places) showed the typical deterioration that inevitably occurs over time, i.e., the emulsion had either already disappeared, or was actively falling off. E. Chesser’s ODs are consistent with mine; this is a very unlikely outcome if we had examined different films. Chesser has also just stated: “I didn’t say that David had not seen the original X-rays….” He has also just sent this comment to me: “I'm certain that you viewed the originals, and you can quote me.” F. For further confirmation that I viewed the “original” X-rays, just ask these on-site witnesses: Gary Aguilar, MD, Steve Majewski, PhD, David Poynter (NARA), Martha Murphy (NARA), or Matthew Fulghum (NARA). Furthermore, Aguilar actually assisted in taking some OD data. 2. Did JFK have a large occipital defect when he arrived at Bethesda? Answer: Yes! A. According to Michael Kurtz, this was affirmed by eight physicians at Bethesda. Also see Doug Horne’s list. B. The Bethesda paraprofessionals concurred with such a large posterior hole. That includes James Jenkins—see images of Jenkins (actually demonstrating this hole) in Law’s book. At my request (and in the presence of William Law and me), on November 22, 2015 at the Adolphus Hotel, Jenkins circled the site of this posterior hole on the head of Michael Chesser. This was videotaped. C. Boswell verbally agreed that the defect extended into the occiput. D. Finck’s report to his superior (Blumberg) cites an occipital defect. E. Even Humes, in the autopsy report, states that the defect went into the occiput. F. Ebersole, even after examining the autopsy X-rays, told me personally that JFK had a large occipital defect. G. I have listed 15 clues that support such a hole (where the Harper fragment fits). H. One clue that is extremely compelling is the presence of fat pads in the corner of F8 (the mystery photo--officially autopsy b&w #17-18 or color #44-45). Besides the ARRB consultant (forensic pathologist, Robert H. Kirschner), both Dr. Michael Chesser and I have seen these fat pads (from the abdominal incision and reflection) in stereo viewing of NARA’s color images. We have also seen other pertinent anterior anatomic features that are consistent with this interpretation of fat pads. All of these features require that F8 be mostly a posterior view, in which case the large right-sided skull defect is obvious in the photograph. 3. Did the skull defect include the parietal area? Answer: Yes, most likely it did. At the very least, the parietal skull had experienced trauma. A. Horne and I have proposed an oblique shot entering near the right ear. That would fit well with parietal trauma. B. James Jenkins saw evidence of a bullet entry near this site. C. Nearby witnesses (the Newmans and Zapruder) report seeing trauma (possibly even blood or tissue) near the right ear. D. Actually, there is a long list of such witnesses—from November 22, 1963. E. Such an oblique (frontal) shot fits well with ejection of the Harper Fragment. Moreover, no other shot explains the occipital hole that was widely reported at Parkland. 4. Why didn’t more witnesses see the parietal trauma? Answer: Quite possibly the scalp had fallen back into a nearly normal position, so that this area was (mostly) covered. 5. On the lateral skull X-rays, does the White Patch cover the Harper Fragment defect at the back of the skull? Answer: No! This is discussed (and illustrated) in detail in my e-book. I have never said otherwise. A. Chesser agrees: “I agree with David that there is an occipital skull defect, separate from the White Patch, and I think it is probably where the Harper Fragment was located.” NOTE: Supporting sources for most of these statements can be found in my e-book: John F. Kennedy's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis and a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment For my critique of Pat Speer, see: David Mantik vs. Pat Speer on the JFK Autopsy X-rays