JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent

[Sandy Larsen]

Pat quoted from his website:

"While higher kilovoltage produces greater penetration, lower kilovoltage values produce a greater degree of contrast in the structure of varying density. Over-penetrated roentgenograms present a grey lack of contrast and under-penetrated films show a chalky increase of contrast which is equally objectionable." It seems possible from this that Kennedy's skull x-rays were both under-penetrated and over-exposed, and that this unfortunate combination led to their strange appearance."

It appears the you can't have both under-penetration and over-exposure on the same film, because the former results from a LOW kV setting, whereas the latter results from a HIGH kV setting.

But maybe what he's saying is that the missing fragments of bone on part of the skull, and extra layer of bone (the "wing") on a different part of the skull, is what caused the excessive contrast we see in the x-ray.

Nevertheless, the most impressive statement Pat makes in his article, in terms of casting doubt on Dr. Mantik's conclusion, IMO, is that Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist and not a radiologist. I had assumed he is a radiologist. (Though this fact doesn't mean he's wrong or doesn't know what he's doing.)

[Greg Burnham]

[...]

Nevertheless, the most impressive statement Pat makes in his article, in terms of casting doubt on Dr. Mantik's conclusion, IMO, is that Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist and not a radiologist. I had assumed he is a radiologist. (Though this fact doesn't mean he's wrong or doesn't know what he's doing.)

It's worth noting that David received his Doctorate in Physics before he entered Medical School. It is further worth noting that the very thesis that earned him his PhD in physics concerned x-Ray scattering. His interest in [and acquired expertise regarding] x-Rays actually preceded his work as a radiation oncologist and was sufficiently formidable to earn him a PhD.

I do not know of a single radiologist who became a physicist on the merits of their Doctoral Thesis concerning x-Ray scattering or any other aspect of x-Rays. That does not mean that there aren't any, but I know of none--particularly none within the JFK Research Community.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Sandy Larsen]

[...]

Nevertheless, the most impressive statement Pat makes in his article, in terms of casting doubt on Dr. Mantik's conclusion, IMO, is that Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist and not a radiologist. I had assumed he is a radiologist. (Though this fact doesn't mean he's wrong or doesn't know what he's doing.)

It's worth noting that David received his Doctorate in Physics before he entered Medical School. It is further worth noting that the very thesis that earned him his PhD in physics concerned x-Ray scattering. His interest in [and acquired expertise regarding] x-Rays actually preceded his work as a radiation oncologist and was sufficiently formidable to earn him a PhD.

I do not know of a single radiologist who became a physicist on the merits of their Doctoral Thesis concerning x-Ray scattering or any other aspect of x-Rays. That does not mean that there aren't any, but I know of none--particularly none within the JFK Research Community.

Greg,

What you say here makes all the difference. Dr. Mantik may know little in terms of reading certain types of x-rays, but he certainly would know how to make and interpret optical densities readings.

Of course, professionals can be mistaken, and non-professionals can get things right. But not knowing that to be the case, my money goes on the professional.

[Greg Burnham]

David Mantik's feedback:

1. Do radiation oncologists know how to read X-rays?

Answer: Unless they can do this, they have NO business treating cancer patients. After all, without this knowledge they would aim the beam at the wrong target!

2. Were JFK’s X-rays overexposed?

Excerpted from CTKA article:

This is a common allegation, but it is misleading. Speer also buys into this myth—he even castigates Custer and Reed for screwing up so badly (even though, paradoxically, he later prefers their opinions—on other matters—over that of true experts). Think about this: no one claims that the other X-rays (of JFK’s extra-cranial sites) were likewise overexposed. They weren’t. So why would the skull X-rays alone be overexposed? Actually, they are not. It is common practice for X-rays to contain optical densities in the range of 0.5 to 2.0, so that the human eye can make rather easy distinctions among different densities. In fact, except for the Dark Area, most of the ODs on the JFK skull X-rays do lie within that typical range, as I have verified via hundreds of measurements. Even the densest bone (the petrous) falls within that range. Back when I first viewed them, the skull X-rays did not strike me as overexposed. Furthermore, such a response has not characterized other viewing experts either, e.g., none of the ARRB experts said that. One exception to this is Russell Morgan, who called them “severely overexposed” (p. 17). [Morgan was the forensic radiologist on the Clark Panel (named for US Attorney General Ramsey Clark), which published its report (of no conspiracy) on January 16, 1969, just days before the Garrison trial began. This panel was led by Russell Fisher, a forensic pathologist. Curiously (some would say suspiciously) both Russells had offices at Johns Hopkins University; in addition, the report had been long delayed, perhaps to counteract the Garrison trial. The Clark report can be found here.] However, with less exposure, the White Patch would be even whiter—and its OD would fall below the normal range for viewing X-rays! Interestingly, Morgan chose to ignore this absurdity. The HSCA, of course, enhanced the X-rays, but I suspect that was mostly to obtain useful prints for publication. (Printing changes the contrast.)

Speer claims that I failed to discuss issues of contrast in the JFK X-rays, thereby imputing this supposed failure to my specialty as a radiation oncologist. By contrast, Speer favorably quotes another radiation oncologist (John Ebersole) but then generously overlooks his specialty (which was the same as mine). More to the point, though, Speer ignores my history as a physicist, which is actually far more germane to this matter than is my specialty. (Just ask a random diagnostic radiologist some detailed OD questions, especially about characteristic curves, if you seek proof of this.) I had, in fact, addressed these issues in some detail in a rather long, but unpublished manuscript (privately circulated in 1994). Many pages were devoted to technical issues regarding OD, including characteristic curves of X-ray films. Although Speer is probably ignorant of this history, he failed even to be curious about it, and instead falsely accused me of being superficial.

Now one final point should seal the deal. I measured the ODs in the background of these X-rays, where only air surrounds the body. These background ODs provide a very useful check on the relative exposure of one X-ray film compared to another. The ODs quoted here are based on several measurements (up to ten) for each X-ray, but the range of ODs on each one was narrow. Here are the mean ODs: AP skull = 3.99; right lateral = 4.01; left lateral = 4.18; abdomen = 3.75; pelvis = 3.73. This represents only a modest range of exposures among the different anatomic sites. The one outlier is the chest, with a mean background OD of 3.42. This implies a lower exposure, but since lung tissue does not need as much exposure, that would be expected. In fact, to use the same exposure for the chest as for the pelvis or abdomen would lead to an overexposure. In short, all of these numbers fit together very well and are not at all surprising. Further support for this conclusion comes from John B. Cahoon (Formulating X-ray Techniques 1966, pp. 167-168). Suggested exposures for the abdomen, pelvis, and skull are almost identical: for the same current (100 milliampere-seconds), they differ only modestly in voltage (respectively 62, 64, and 70 kV). By contrast, the suggested PA chest exposure is only 10 milliampere-seconds (at 62 kV), a much lower exposure. These exposures are completely compatible with the background ODs on the JFK X-rays. Therefore, to claim that the skull X-rays were incorrectly exposed (and also to accept that the extra-cranial X-rays were correctly exposed—which they were) makes no sense. This discussion should just be put to bed—and Morgan was wrong to say that overexposure had occurred. The OD data convincingly close this case.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Cliff Varnell]

Think about this: no one claims that the other X-rays (of JFK’s extra-cranial sites) were likewise overexposed. They weren’t.

*

And so we can regard these extra-cranial x-rays as authentic?

The title of this thread implies all the autopsy x-rays were found fraudulent.

Shouldn't this crucial distinction be drawn?

[Greg Burnham]

Perhaps I should have included the word "cranial" to the thread's title. However, it is GROSSLY OBVIOUS that we are talking about cranial x-rays since the article focuses ENTIRELY on the optical densitometry measurements of JFK's skull.

David did not specifically say that the extra cranial x-rays are authentic. He said that they are not over exposed.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Sandy Larsen]

David Mantik's feedback:

1. Do radiation oncologists know how to read X-rays?

Answer: Unless they can do this, they have NO business treating cancer patients. After all, without this knowledge they would aim the beam at the wrong target!

Well if that's the case, Dr. Mantik should just call himself a radiologist. Like Dr Ebersole, also a radiation oncologist, did in his HSCA testimony. (Interestingly, Dr. Ebersole made this comment as a result of an assertion Dr. Morgan had made that no radiologist was present at the autopsy. See Dr. Morgan in paragraph 2, below.)

2. Were JFK’s X-rays overexposed?

Excerpted from CTKA article:

.... Back when I first viewed them, the skull X-rays did not strike me as overexposed. Furthermore, such a response has not characterized other viewing experts either, e.g., none of the ARRB experts said that. One exception to this is Russell Morgan, who called them “severely overexposed” (p. 17). [Morgan was the forensic radiologist on the Clark Panel (named for US Attorney General Ramsey Clark), which published its report (of no conspiracy) on January 16, 1969, just days before the Garrison trial began. .... However, with less exposure, the White Patch would be even whiter—and its OD would fall below the normal range for viewing X-rays! Interestingly, Morgan chose to ignore this absurdity.

..... This discussion should just be put to bed—and Morgan was wrong to say that overexposure had occurred. The OD data convincingly close this case.

Ah, that's right! If the x-ray was overexposed, as I believe Pat contends, then the solution would be to decrease the radiation level. But by doing that, the bright spot would only get brighter! Which is undesirable.

On the other hand, if the radiation level were increased a little, the bright spot would be a little less bright and therefore not so close to the bright extreme. Problem with that is that the dark area (where bone fragments are missing) would become even more dark. Dr. Mantik says the dark area is already outside the normal range. (I deleted that part from his quote above.) So that can't be done.

The bottom line is that nothing can be done to get the whole image into normal range. At least that is how it appears to me from what Dr. Mantik says. If the bright spot weren't there, however, then this wouldn't be an issue. The radiation level could (presumably) be decreased enough that the dark areas would be in normal range.

[Pat Speer]

The point of my last post was to show that creating a good x-ray on that old equipment was very complicated--you had to find the right balance between the power of the x-ray and the length of the exposure. Mantik never addresses this in all his writings on the subject. He makes it seem like you can't have the whiteness of the white patch alongside the blackness of the front of the skull--that it's just impossible. But he fails to address that there were 3 layers of bone on the side of the skull where the "wing of bone" overlapped the skull, and that this directly overlay the so-called "white patch", and that the black area he found so problematic at the front of the skull represented but one layer of bone, and, by his own acknowledgement, missing brain.

When he did discuss the white patch in public--at the 2009 Lancer Conference-- moreover, he misled his audience. He told them it was "Speer's theory" and made this out to be the theory of a layman who understood little if anything about x-rays. He hid from them that John J. Fitzpatrick, the forensic radiologist contacted by Mantik's biggest supporter Doug Horne on behalf the ARRB, had not only rejected Mantik's findings (as Mantik admitted at the conference) but had specifically told Horne that "overlapping bone is clearly present in the lateral skull x-rays" and that "the red flap above the ear" in the autopsy photos "equates with the overlapping bone in the lateral skull x-rays." Well, HELLO, it wasn't my theory after all, but the conclusions of a forensic radiologist...that Horne and most certainly Mantik had known about for over 13 years...but had chosen to sit on until the release of Horne's book...

And it wasn't just Fitzpatrick. Forensic Anthropologist Douglas Ubelaker, upon viewing the lateral x-rays, had similarly told Horne that "overlapping bone fragments" in the "temporal-parietal region of the lateral x-rays" were readily apparent.

So why hasn't Mantik addressed this? Why didn't he compare the OD measurements of Kennedy's x-rays to those demonstrating overlapping bone fragments?

Well, when I first raised a stink about this some years back, he DID address this...in a pretty strange manner, IMO. When Greg's old buddy James Fetzer confronted Mantik with my comments Mantik assured him that an extra layer of bone would barely register on an x-ray. OOOPS. Apparently, he'd forgotten that x-rays are used to identify skull fractures, which represent narrow lines where a layer of bone is missing.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Perhaps I should have included the word "cranial" to the thread's title. However, it is GROSSLY OBVIOUS that we are talking about cranial x-rays since the article focuses ENTIRELY on the optical densitometry measurements of JFK's skull.

And yet Dr. Mantik wrote:

Think about this: no one claims that the other X-rays (of JFK’s extra-cranial sites) were likewise overexposed. They weren’t.

David did not specifically say that the extra cranial x-rays are authentic. He said that they are not over exposed.

So...Is there any reason to believe the extra cranial x-rays are inauthentic?

Seems like such a simple question, it shouldn't take a degree in dentistry to pull out a straight answer.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Burnham]

Perhaps I should have included the word "cranial" to the thread's title. However, it is GROSSLY OBVIOUS that we are talking about cranial x-rays since the article focuses ENTIRELY on the optical densitometry measurements of JFK's skull.

And yet Dr. Mantik wrote:

Think about this: no one claims that the other X-rays (of JFK’s extra-cranial sites) were likewise overexposed. They weren’t.

David did not specifically say that the extra cranial x-rays are authentic. He said that they are not over exposed.

So...Is there any reason to believe the extra cranial x-rays are inauthentic?

Seems like such a simple question, it shouldn't take a degree in dentistry to pull out a straight answer.

I don't know the answer, Cliff. I have not asked him. We were focusing on SKULL x-rays in this thread. If you would like to start a topic about the remaining extra-cranial x-rays that is up to you, but please don't derail this thread from CRANIAL x-rays and divert it to your off-topic preference.

David's comment that "...no one claims that the other X-rays (of JFK’s extra-cranial sites) were likewise overexposed" -- was made entirely within the context of comparison to the skull x-rays. His point has nothing to do with the authenticity of the remaining x-rays.

Perhaps you can go find or hire your own expert for your own topic....but, this one's mine.

[Cliff Varnell]

I don't know the answer, Cliff. I have not asked him.

Bingo!

That wasn't too hard to admit, was it?

We were focusing on SKULL x-rays in this thread.

Pick a more accurate header next time.

[Greg Burnham]

The point of my last post was to show that creating a good x-ray on that old equipment was very complicated--you had to find the right balance between the power of the x-ray and the length of the exposure. Mantik never addresses this in all his writings on the subject. He makes it seem like you can't have the whiteness of the white patch alongside the blackness of the front of the skull--that it's just impossible. But he fails to address that there were 3 layers of bone on the side of the skull where the "wing of bone" overlapped the skull, and that this directly overlay the so-called "white patch", and that the black area he found so problematic at the front of the skull represented but one layer of bone, and, by his own acknowledgement, missing brain.

When he did discuss the white patch in public--at the 2009 Lancer Conference-- moreover, he misled his audience. He told them it was "Speer's theory" and made this out to be the theory of a layman who understood little if anything about x-rays. He hid from them that John J. Fitzpatrick, the forensic radiologist contacted by Mantik's biggest supporter Doug Horne on behalf the ARRB, had not only rejected Mantik's findings (as Mantik admitted at the conference) but had specifically told Horne that "overlapping bone is clearly present in the lateral skull x-rays" and that "the red flap above the ear" in the autopsy photos "equates with the overlapping bone in the lateral skull x-rays." Well, HELLO, it wasn't my theory after all, but the conclusions of a forensic radiologist...that Horne and most certainly Mantik had known about for over 13 years...but had chosen to sit on until the release of Horne's book...

And it wasn't just Fitzpatrick. Forensic Anthropologist Douglas Ubelaker, upon viewing the lateral x-rays, had similarly told Horne that "overlapping bone fragments" in the "temporal-parietal region of the lateral x-rays" were readily apparent.

So why hasn't Mantik addressed this? Why didn't he compare the OD measurements of Kennedy's x-rays to those demonstrating overlapping bone fragments?

Well, when I first raised a stink about this some years back, he DID address this...in a pretty strange manner, IMO. When Greg's old buddy James Fetzer confronted Mantik with my comments Mantik assured him that an extra layer of bone would barely register on an x-ray. OOOPS. Apparently, he'd forgotten that x-rays are used to identify skull fractures, which represent narrow lines where a layer of bone is missing.

Pat,

I take personal offense to what you are writing here. The quality of David Mantik's professional expertise is only surpassed by the quality of his high moral and ethical standards. What you are implying in this and other posts, that he would deliberately, conveniently and knowingly omit relevant material facts, speaks not only to your penchant for disparaging his work, but also speaks to your seeking to discredit his moral fiber. Such tactics should not only be beneath an honest broker's sense of "right and wrong," but certainly should be anathema to a forum moderator. That we have a moderator committing such thinly veiled ad hominem is pathetic.

[Greg Burnham]

I don't know the answer, Cliff. I have not asked him.

Bingo!

That wasn't too hard to admit, was it?

We were focusing on SKULL x-rays in this thread.

Pick a more accurate header next time.

Cliff,

I am not here to do your work for you, conduct research into topics that you find important so that you don't have to do it yourself, or ask questions of experts that you can ask yourself.

[Cliff Varnell]

I don't know the answer, Cliff. I have not asked him.

Bingo!

That wasn't too hard to admit, was it?

We were focusing on SKULL x-rays in this thread.

Pick a more accurate header next time.

Cliff,

I am not here to do your work for you, conduct research into topics that you find important so that you don't have to do it yourself, or ask questions of experts that you can ask yourself.

Mighty thin skinned over a simple question, Greg.

I asked it four times.

Your header invited the question.

Why are you making a federal case of it?

[Greg Burnham]

Cliff strikes again. Another thread topic derailed. Congratulations. I'm out.