Greg Burnham

Pat Speer has cited two (2) Parkland doctors who anomalously believe that the wound was on the upper right side of the head, while the majority of the Parkland witnesses, nine (9) by my count, say that it was in the rear of the head. Several, including a neurosurgeon, record in their contemporaneous notes that cerebellum was visible and, in fact, oozed out of the wound. Can Pat account for the fact that these doctors somehow considered it plausible that they could see cerebellum when the wound was 'really' at the right top of the head? What quantity of brain would be required to be evacuated in order for the "Pat Speer exit hole scenario" to be valid? Would physicians who had seen the tremendous amount of displaced brain material--necessary to expose the cerebellum--not have a compelling remembrance of exactly where this cavernous wound was, and not mistakenly claim that it was in the occiput in notes written up within mere hours of Kennedy's death? Since both Mantik and Horne posit an entry near the right ear, the right parietal area would likely also be involved, but probably not very visible especially if the scalp had fallen back into its place of origin. On another note: Why the false dichotomy? Pat would seem to have us believe that the wound needs to be either parietal or occipital, but could not include both. Why? David is not ruling out the parietal area. He is maintaining that the wound involved the occiput, and likely involved the parietal, as well. That appears to be one of the items from the autopsy report that was factually correct. Pat, perhaps it will also prove useful--to those of us trying to understand your POV--to create an exhibit demonstrating where your exit wound is located, which is an analogue to the one shown at Lancer.

Gene, Why are you changing the subject? This is about the scientific method. I assumed, rightly, that you know what it is and that you know the value of it as per your own profession, else I wouldn't have been sarcastic about it. Having said that, Pat Speer has not offered any cogent rebuttal to David's QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS in this thread. Yet, we know that is where any real debate about this specific aspect of the cranial x-ray evidence should begin. It is not about a past error nor is it about alleged, but provably unfounded, omissions. The scientific method demands that any real debate of this subject from where it now stands should focus on replication. In this case, replication or the failure to replicate, must begin from measurements. How could any scientist or layperson be taken seriously if they merely claim that the measurements taken by a scientist are wrong, but without ever demonstrating where the error exists? I recall a brilliant man whose family business was in plumbing. He discovered and ultimately proved that Stephen Hawking was wrong about the information "lost" in a Black Hole. Of course, Leonard Susskind is much more than a plumber. He is also an eminent Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University. Still, even with his credentials, nobody simply took his word for it, did they? Nope. He had to "do the math" and demonstrate Hawking's error. Yet, even with Susskind's background (an expert) it took him 28 years to prove Hawking wrong and he has one of the best minds in physics, access to the best methodologies, equipment, and peers to review his work in progress. Granted the x-ray study does not require nearly as complex an understanding of physics as the study of Black Holes requires. Still, refuting MEASUREMENTS can really only be accomplished by providing alternate MEASUREMENTS. So far we have not seen any from Pat Speer. This is not about respect for another's point of view, Gene. It is about self respect. Any self respecting researcher who does not respect the scientific method, but only pays lip service to it, has more than my opinion of them to worry about.

Sometimes you need to flush your DNS cache memory to get the page to refresh completely or you can try it form a different computer. It's funny because when I first published the article, the author, Dr. Chesser called me up and said that he couldn't see the whole article on his machine either. When I told him to try it on a different computer it was there all along.

You didn't even bother to read the thread! Everyone does NOT agree that the "white patch" in the x-rays is the result of over-exposure. Indeed, the only two persons who are currently engaged in this forum debate who are professionally trained to make such judgments, Drs. Mantik and Chesser, actually took measurements on the real autopsy x-rays, and both concluded that the x-rays were NOT over-exposed. So the truth is the opposite of what you just wrote! Those forum members who claim otherwise can't even get into the archives to conduct tests due to lack of expertise. I wish they could get in so that they could at least attempt to provide us with quantitative data to support their scurrilous speculation. But, until they do provide quantitative data to support their claims, their conclusions are nothing more than an assortment of unsupported assertions that do not derive from the scientific method. "They will wear you down." They can try.

Hi Tom, Here's a screen shot of the poll. It is located just beneath the "CONCLUSIONS" frame in the article and is just above the "Comments" section. Are you able to find the Conclusions frame? Are you able to scroll to the Comments section? It is in between those two. Sorry you are having so much trouble finding it, but I can't vote for you. The poll is set to only allow one vote per IP address, including mine.

Gene, I was referring to the proper approach to scientific inquiry: scientific method. I do not believe that Pat Speer has offered anything close to it, particularly nothing quantitative. Your analogy to Einstein and quantum mechanics is fatally flawed. The scientific debate that yet persists about those subjects at least proceeds according to the tenets of scientific method. I am not suggesting that we should silence Part Speer or dismiss HIM out of hand. I am arguing that he should be held to the same STANDARD as the scientific community is held when critiquing a scientific study. Those who challenge Einstein's theories are only taken seriously if they can show that Einstein's "math" is flawed, his experiments are somehow not replicable, or they can produce a better alternative to it. Those who criticize Einstein, for example, would never be heard at all if they simply tossed proverbial darts at his work without sincerely attempting to replicate it in good faith. The claim of cold fusion in the living room was debunked through the inability of other scientists to replicate it. But at least they made the attempt at replication. That's what I am challenging Pat Speer to do before he advances "quantitative claims" for which he has produced no support let alone proof. This is about employing the best methodology available in order to test the hypothesis in question. This should not be about Pat Speer reflexively disputing anything David Mantik publishes, yet that seems so. It should be about both sides of the debate conforming to accepted standards of properly conducting scientific inquiry. Surely you find merit to the scientific method? You don't seem to, but I'll let it go.

Gene, I am not dismissing him on the grounds that he lacks credentials. I am objecting to his taking pot shots from the gallery. There is a way to approach this that would lend itself to discovering more about the evidence. That approach is cooperative rather than divisive. That approach would attempt to replicate the findings before dismissing them. You should know better with YOUR credentials than to argue otherwise.

You didn't even bother to read the thread! Everyone does NOT agree that the "white patch" in the x-rays is the result of over-exposure. Indeed, the only two persons who are currently engaged in this forum debate who are professionally trained to make such judgments, Drs. Mantik and Chesser, actually took measurements on the real autopsy x-rays, and both concluded that the x-rays were NOT over-exposed. So the truth is the opposite of what you just wrote! Those forum members who claim otherwise can't even get into the archives to conduct tests due to lack of expertise. I wish they could get in so that they could at least attempt to provide us with quantitative data to support their scurrilous speculation. But, until they do provide quantitative data to support their claims, their conclusions are nothing more than an assortment of unsupported assertions that do not derive from the scientific method.

For some reason when I go to your site this poll does not appear. I do see the poll regarding what the conspirators had to gain. I have scrolled from top to bottom and still no poll... Tom Hey Tom, This poll isn't on the first page or on the side bar. That's where the old poll is located. The new poll is on the page containing Doctor Chesser's article. Click here: A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs -- then scroll all the way to the very end of the article and you will find the poll on the bottom toward the left side.

To be clear, I do not believe, nor have I ever claimed, that a person who holds an advanced degree is necessarily correct. Neither have I claimed, nor do I believe, that an advanced degree is required for an individual to arrive at the truth, nor that the truth an amateur arrives at may only be valid if it, in fact, agrees with the experts. However, when we are talking about truth as discoverable through science, then the SCIENTIFIC METHOD should be relied upon rather than lesser methodologies. Doctors Mantik and Chesser have employed the Scientific Method to advance their positions. Pat Speer has not. I am inviting him to do so. That other experts have failed to conduct experiments to attempt to replicate the findings of both Mantik and Chesser, respectively, does not constitute any type of proof that Mantik and/or Chesser are mistaken. Pat Speer makes overly broad criticisms without providing the science to support his conclusions. As David pointed out above: If Speer disagrees with this conclusion then he should say so—and supply quantitative data. ​I can only conclude that Pat Speer does not supply original quantitative data because he does not possess any. He points out that Mantik's original findings were published 20 years ago, but fails to point out that no scientist has ever refuted Mantik's findings by supplying quantitative data in support of such refutation. As I said in a different thread: What I find most amazing is that we have so-called researchers here who have never themselves handled or directly examined the autopsy evidence, yet claim to have some inside info on what the evidence shows. Additionally, not only do they lack experience with handling, examining and testing these specific items of medical evidence, but they also lack having ANY experience with handling, examining or testing ANY medical evidence from ANY autopsy from ANYWHERE at ANY time. So Brian, this goes way beyond any bias toward an expert's opinion over an amateur's opinion. It speaks to the qualification required to render an educated opinion based not only on academic credentials, but on actual practical real-world experience. Like I said, I hope the view is good from the cheap seats. If they are not the cheap seats then perhaps Pat should put some quantitative data where his mouth is!

Yawn.

Results of poll thus far reveal that the top two answers are: Answer "both 5 and 6" is leading with about 63% of the vote and answer "1" is in second place with about 15% of the vote.

Seriously? You are equating their respective levels of expertise? If that is true, then why is one (Mantik) allowed into the National Archives to handle the actual autopsy materials and conduct scientific tests on it, while the other (Speer) is not even allowed access to the materials for lack of expertise? To wit, David W. Mantik: 1) received his doctorate in physics from the University of Wisconsin (his doctoral thesis concerned x-ray scattering) 2) became a member of the physics faculty (as assistant professor) at the University of Wisconsin 3) upon choosing a profession in the medical field, completed his internship and residency in radiation oncology at LAC/USC Medical Center in Los Angeles 4) completed a fellowship in physics at the University of Illinois 5) completed a fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University 6) completed a junior faculty clinical fellowship with the American Cancer Society As for Pat Speer: 1) received no degree in physics 2) was not a professor of physics 3) never completed any medical internship in any field at any University 4) completed no fellowship in physics, biophysics, or any medical discipline Moreover, David Mantik's qualifications and expertise in correctly reading and interpreting data gleaned from x-rays is demonstrated by the hundreds, if not thousands (no exaggeration), of patients whose lives have depended on him to accurately identify and locate malignancies that were first observed by him in their x-rays. I do not mean to criticize Speer for his lack of qualifications. I mean to criticize him for attempting to piss in the tall grass with the big dogs.

Thank you for posting this, Monk. I heartily agree... Just saw this post this morning. quote on I have been most impressed with his unusual patience when his work comes under attack by those who are not educated in the medical field, (but would have us believe that they have a "self-taught degree" in medicine that's "just as good" as the real thing). His willingness to explain, in detail and in lay person's terms, the meaning of his findings to those unfamiliar with radiology (even those who talk a good game, but know next to nothing about the subject). quote off It doesn't appear to be Dr. Mantik's nature to tell some to *buzz off*! And that's too bad! You're welcome, David. What I find most amazing is that we have so-called researchers here who have never themselves handled or directly examined the autopsy evidence, yet claim to have some inside info on what the evidence shows. Additionally, not only do they lack experience with handling, examining and testing these specific items of medical evidence, but they also lack having ANY experience with handling, examining or testing ANY medical evidence from ANY autopsy from ANYWHERE at ANY time. Not to mention that if they were granted such access to the evidence they wouldn't know where to start. Indeed, the National Archives will not even permit them near the evidence for lack of expertise! Not to unfairly fault those without proper expertise, still, the least they could do is FIND AN EXPERT who could be granted access and describe to the expert what they want tested. Sound science is often best expressed in measurements. Both David Mantik, MD. PhD, and Michael Chesser, MD were granted access to the autopsy materials--as the level of their expertise was recognized by the National Archives and Kennedy family Counsel-- where they took measurements and reported their findings. Some of the people who post here couldn't find a ruler with both hands, a map, and a flashlight.

David Mantik responds to Pat Speer: =========================== Response by Mantik (Winter Solstice, 2015) 1. Was it complicated to find the right balance between the “power of the x-ray and the length of the exposure”? Answer: Although it is not defined, I shall assume that the anomalous phrase, “power of the X-ray,” refers to voltage. Besides the duration of exposure, though, the missing parameter in the above discussion is current. But to the point: the answer is No! This is not complicated—one just needs to follow the standard charts (shown below). Skull exposures are on the next page in this reference book. They are not shown here, but are available on request. See attached scan from Formulating X-ray Techniques by John Calhoun, Jr., Sixth Edition (1966). Based on my measurements of the background air (in JFK’s X-rays), I have discussed how appropriate Custer’s settings were. See http://www.ctka.net/reviews/mantik_speer.html. 1. Have I addressed the fact that 3 layers of skull sometimes occur on JFK’s lateral X-ray? Answer: Yes indeed, this is an old story. No one disagrees about this. See http://www.ctka.net/reviews/mantik_speer.html. 2. Would an extra layer of bone register on an X-ray? Answer: Not very much. That is also discussed (in quantitative detail) at the above link. This issue was definitely not overlooked. If Speer disagrees with this conclusion then he should say so—and supply quantitative data. 3. Do the 3 layers explain the White Patch? Answer: No, definitely not. That discussion is also an old story. See the link above. 4. Does the Dark Area represent one layer of bone? Answer: No, it contains 2 layers. That discussion is also old. See the link above, and especially note my Figure 7. 5. Why didn’t I compare the OD measurements of Kennedy's X-rays to those demonstrating overlapping bone fragments? Answer: Of course, that too was done a long while ago. The result is summarized at the above link. 6. Did the ARRB consultant, forensic radiologist John Fitzpatrick, reject my findings? Answer: Yes, he did. He does not accept photo-alteration of the JFK skull X-rays, but (rather curiously) he offered no critique whatsoever of this proposal. (He merely stated that he disagreed—but how does that help us?) So then how does he explain the 6.5 mm fragment? The answer is that he does not. He was so puzzled by this thing that, in an attempt to solve the deepest mystery in the history of diagnostic radiology, he even returned for a second day to view this object—and he totally failed to explain it (as he admitted). My letter to him cited 12 or more points of agreement (with him), and one possible disagreement. He eventually responded, but refused to engage in any dialogue. So the matter rests. (Both my letter and his response have been publicly displayed. There is nothing mysterious about any of this.) 7. Should we as researchers impute motive (especially unpleasant) to other researchers? Answer: No. 8. Have the extra-cranial X-rays been altered? Answer: No one has ever suggested this, and I have had no reason to believe so. Why is this an issue at all? After all, the radio-opaque dye from the myelogram is still visible. 9. Have new and useful questions (about JFK’s X-rays) been raised in this forum? Answer: No.

Scott, If I offended you in some way, I apologize. You asked for opinions and I gave mine. On the other hand, since I really don't have an interest in this particular aspect of the case, I was simply trying to be helpful. That'll teach me.

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

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.

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.

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.

Hey Scott, I don't believe this one is authentic either. However, it seems to mimic an NSA type of communication, rather than a CIA or FBI memo. Notice the redaction is "whited out" as opposed to "blacked out" which is typically NSA's "style." The "graininess" also bears an NSA similarity as does the "SECRET" stamp, which almost appears like an NSA style "stencil" commonly used by that agency. However, if it really was an NSA document, in addition to the SECRET classification it would have typically had "NOFORN" (an acronym for No Foreign Dissemination) stamped at the top and/or bottom, unless the alleged statement by Castro was made on public radio or television then that would not have been the case. Lastly, why is it a miniature document? I have seen and handled thousands of NSA documents. The SECRET stamp at the top seems in a normal position, but since when did NSA or other agencies begin using 1/2 sheets of paper for their communications? The SECRET stamp at the bottom of the page does not seem right. There isn't enough "blank page" between the bottom of the paragraph and the alleged bottom of the document. Of course, I might be wrong, but that is my opinion.

No offense, Scott, but even if we assume that the document is authentic (and that the CIA erroneously thought Banister was still an FBI Special Agent 9 years after he retired), etc., what makes the information in it particularly valuable? The redaction is so heavy that we can conclude very little even if it were legit. It seems odd that the CIA would be in receipt of G2 from a former FBI agent before the FBI was. We know Banister continued to supply the Bureau with Intel through contacts, but I am not aware that he was an informant for the CIA as this memo suggests. If anything you'd think he would have passed Intel to the Bureau and then they in turn would have sent it to the CIA as appropriate. However, in this case, the CIA has the Intel from Banister first and is passing it to the Bureau and that seems backwards.

FWIW: There's no probative value to the document irrespective of its authenticity, as it lacks substance. However, I am also quite certain that it is a fake. In addition to the suspect items already mentioned, Guy Banister would not have been referred to as a SA [special Agent] in 1963. He had not been a SA for the FBI since 1954 when he retired. Therefore he would not have been misidentified as an FBI Special Agent in a CIA memo to the Bureau. Also note that USGOV documents typically use the day/month/year format exclusively. So 6 August is consistent, but August 9 is not. That both are used within the same document and side by side in the same sentence is also suspect.

You're welcome, Vince, and thank you, too.

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.