Greg Burnham

Bob, I suggest you ask him that question directly in the "Comments" section below his article on my main website. Scroll to the bottom to ask your question. The comments section is just below the poll.

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.

The subject looks more like Frank Sturgis (aka: Frank Fiorini), than it does Oswald, IMO. I'm not saying I think it is Sturgis, but I don't see a very strong a resemblance to Oswald.

Bumped. I was quite surprised that some poll participants believe that the Naval Medical Personnel chosen to perform the Bethesda autopsy were the best available forensic pathologists for the job even though they had no experience with gunshot wounds! I am equally mystified that some of those, who at least admit the personnel were "less than optimal," also believe that the reason they were placed under a gag order was to hide "innocent" mistakes that were made! However, the majority of those polled do not believe these things. See the results so far at this link: Medical Evidence Poll -- Be sure to scroll to the very end of the article to find the poll and please cast your vote if you haven't already.

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.

In another thread, Pat Speer relies on the statements made by Dr. Kenneth Salyer during this year's JFK Lancer Conference. However, thanks to the book, JFK -- From Parkland to Bethesda, by Vince Palamara, we find that not only did Salyer believe that the autopsy photos were tampered with (see his statement to that effect in 1964), but Salyer himself also finds it anomalous that none of his colleagues recollected the wounds the same way as he did!

"Cold Case JFK" vs. Cold Hard JFK Facts by David W. Mantik, MD, PhD (physics)Posted November 26, 2013 Note: This is a critical review of the NOVA production (November 14, 2013) – "Cold Case JFK." G. Robert Blakey (as quoted on "Cold Case JFK"): "...the need that led to the Warren Commission was not to find out what happened but to assure the American people what didn't happen." John McCloy (Warren Commission): [it was of paramount importance to] "show the world that America is not a banana republic, where a government can be changed by conspiracy." Jim Marrs (Crossfire 2013, p. 441): "Allen Dulles told author Edward Jay Epstein that since an atmosphere of rumors and suspicion interferes with the functioning of the government, especially abroad, one of the Commission's main tasks was to dispel rumors." This was a remarkably disingenuous program, with many erroneous assumptions, misleading statements, and crucial omissions. I label these accordingly below. I also list several correct statements and provide additional comments.

I have added a poll to the bottom of Dr. Michael Chesser's article. Please take a moment to voice your opinion. You must scroll down to the very bottom to vote. Here is the poll's content:

I didn't say I am done with the EF or with the topic. I'm just done with trying to explain it to Pat.

First, you are committing multiple fallacies. That Kurtz's credibility is less than impeccable in some areas does not mean that everything he has ever offered should be discarded. If that were the case no one should read a word you have written either. Indeed, he wasn't David's only cite for that very reason. Second, you are also refusing to abide by the philosophical Principle of Charity: "In philosophy and rhetoric, the Principle of Charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation." ​Moreover, you are also discarding the Principle of Charitable Interpretation, which says: ​"When more than one interpretation of an argument is possible, the argument should be interpreted so that the premises provide the strongest possible support for the conclusion." You attempt to use semantics in order to attack the weakest possible interpretation of David's argument rather than its strongest. This approach is quite counter-productive, as it is adversarial by design. I tried. Now I'm done.

Please note that Dr. Michael Chesser has now joined my forum and is actively posting answers to inquiries raised by the article.

David Mantik Responds to Pat Speer

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

The above article is a companion piece to this topic which some found necessary to suppress by superfluous posting of meaningless drivel in another thread. Please do not derail this thread from its original topic. Thanks.

PLEASE NOTE: This thread is NOT about the Harper Fragment, the Zapruder Film, the anti-Castro Cubans, or space aliens. It is about the MEDICAL EVIDENCE -- Specifically: It is about the JFK cranial optical densitometry measurements taken from the pre-mortem x-Rays at the JFK Library vs. the JFK cranial optical densitometry measurements taken from the post-mortem autopsy x-Rays, which are currently housed at the National Archives. Of particular interest is the fact that they do not match each other by a long shot, yet, to be authentic, they must. I would like to congratulate those who derailed this thread. I started a new topic to get back on track here: A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs

Good work, Don!

The reason I pointed out my friendship with David had only to do with the amount of time we have spent talking about this. I am suggesting that you may not be as familiar with his POV as you think you are because much of what you say is a misrepresentation of his position. It's okay. He was recently published in a peer reviewed journal. They seem to understand what he was demonstrating. BTW: This thread is NOT about the Harper Fragment. It is about the JFK cranial optical densitometry measurements taken on pre-mortem x-Rays at the JFK Library vs. the JFK cranial optical densitometry measurements taken from the post-mortem x-Rays taken for autopsy and currently housed at the National Archives. Of particular interest is the fact that they do not match each other by a long shot, yet, to be authentic, they must.

See this link: A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs by Michael Chesser, MD

I have just published the presentation of Neurologist, Dr. Michael Chesser, on the main website, which he delivered at the JFK Lancer Conference in Dallas this year. This is a MUST read, IMO. We spoke on the telephone today and Dr. Chesser has agreed to join my forum and will answer any questions that you may have for him there. A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs From the intro: [Editorial note: The following presentation was prepared and delivered by neurologist, Dr. Michael Chesser, at the 2015 JFK Lancer Conference in Dallas, Texas. His work also supports the findings of Dr. David Mantik. According to Dr. Chesser: “I viewed the original autopsy skull X-rays at the archives this year [2015] and I confirmed [Mantik’s] optical density readings of the lateral skull film, which support his conclusion that there was manipulation. Hopefully there will come a time when better copies of the autopsy x-rays and photographs will be made available for review by a wider audience and the evidence will speak for itself. I applaud Dr. David Mantik for his courage in reporting the truth.” While there are many debatable items of evidence in this case, many of which cannot be proved one way or another, the medical evidence has now been subjected to scrutiny by several eminently qualified medical experts and a physicist. Dr. Michael Chesser demonstrates, among other things, that these rather disturbing findings are replicable. We thank him for his good work and dedication to the truth.– Greg Burnham]

So your qualifications are so lacking that the National Archives won't even let you in to examine the materials. Yet we are to take your word for it? And as for anatomy, who should I trust more: a RADIOLOGIST or a music man? I sure hope the view is good from the cheap seats, Pat.

Pat, I consider David to be a rather close friend both within the JFK Research Critical Community and without it. I have spent hours upon hours with David discussing these things and you do not represent his views well at all. You simply do not seem to comprehend what you are reading. It's as if his work is written in a language that you think you understand, but you really do not. Please stop. Although you may disagree with his expert opinion (as a Doctor of Physics) and with his methodology (as a Medical Doctor, Board Certified in Radiology by profession), thus far you have not offered anything remotely resembling science. The proper approach for you to employ should conform to the scientific method. That means you should go to the National Archives yourself and perform some scientific experiments in the hope that you will find support for your hypothesis. Of course, the National Archives may refuse to grant you the same or similar access--as that which is enjoyed by Doctors Mantik and Chesser--on the grounds that you lack the proper training, expertise, experience, know-how, and required instruments to perform whatever experiments are needed to confirm or refute the MEASUREMENTS taken by Mantik and Chesser. So, for starters, you would need to bring with you a person who is qualified or at least sufficiently competent to satisfy the requirements. I believe you will need to seek permission from the Kennedy Family's counsel. He most likely will want to know your experience in handling autopsy materials, etc. Knock yourself out and get back to us when you have something scientific. Should be no problem for you.

I will be publishing Dr. Chesser's entire Lancer Presentation titled: A Review of the Cranial Autopsy x-Rays and Photographs on my website shortly. Stay tuned.

Of course, given that he is not a medical expert, such a mistake in this instance--and I'm sure many, many others--is to be expected from him.

I wish you both the best of luck in your pursuit of the Sponsors. It is a different path than my own.

I received this email from Dr. Michael Chesser in response to Pat Speer's comments [above]. The relevant portion is posted here with his permission: Hi Greg, I've attached my presentation with notes. I'm very disappointed to read Pat's comments. I didn't say that David had not seen the original x-rays - I have no idea where he [speer] got that. My slide covering the left lateral skull x-ray describes what happened at NARA when I viewed that film. The NARA personnel overheard me dictating, and when I dictated my thoughts that the T shape was covered by emulsion, they immediately left the room and came back with Martha Murphy, who told me that a mistake had been made, and that I had been looking at the HSCA copies. She appeared upset - I thought at the time that she was upset with the personnel in the room, but I of course can't know what she was thinking. The T shape appeared odd, and it lit up and stood out from the background when I would shine my flashlight from one angle, but I couldn't actually see a wax mark on the surface of the emulsion. I still don't know how to interpret this. I can see how David concluded there is emulsion over the T shape, because the surface is smooth. 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. What convinced me more than anything else is the appearance of the scalp retraction photograph. [end quote]