Martin Hay

Riley's stuff is strangely overlooked. I've been recommending it to people for years. Did you try the email address at the bottom of "What Struck John?"? (jriley@silverlink.net)

Hartogs was a serious scumbag. In 1975 a jury found him guilty of malpractice because he had been convincing his female patients to have sex with him as part of their "therapy". No intellectually honest person would take anything said by such a man seriously.

Jerrol Custer is not someone on whom I would rely too heavily. His ARRB testimony was frequently at odds with the known facts. For example, there is absolutely no dispute about the fact that a tracheotomy was performed on JFK at Parkland Hospital, and yet... GUNN: Did you ever see a wound on the front of President Kennedy's throat or the anterior of the throat? CUSTER: Yes, I did. GUNN: Could you describe the wound that you observed? CUSTER: A typical bullet hole. GUNN: How large was it? CUSTER: I would estimate, a little bigger than my little finger in dimension, across circumference - or diameter. GUNN: Okay. So, there was not a long incision or cut on the throat that you observed; is that correct? CUSTER: Not at that time, I didn't. Cleary the passage of more than 30 years had diminished the reliability of Custer's recollections. Which is to be expected. And it proves that the whole "You wouldn't forget something like JFK's autopsy" argument is total nonsense. Human memory is easily influenced and alters over time.

Hi Martin Maybe you should look a little closer at these things before posting them. Your video shows .22 LONG rifle ammo, not .22 SHORT ammo. Pat Speer distinctly said a SUBSONIC .22 bullet, and the only .22 ammo that is slower than the speed of sound, at 1035 fps, is .22 short ammo. Fair enough. My bad.

I thought this video might be relevant to the discussion. It shows .22 ammo penetrating 5 inches of meat wrapped in denim at 300 yards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAkOzr6cDx0

Delete duplicate.

A very sensible approach, Glenn. There should be more like you.

... I think it's a shame that Mantik persists in his claims of alteration instead of updating his arguments to deal with what the evidence actually shows. ... I believe David Mantik MD, Ph.D., article is an update, within the last 2 weeks or so. Maybe your neuroscientist "expert" should take a peek, yes? Is there a reason why Dr. Riley is only an "expert" whereas Dr. Mantik is apparently the real deal in your estimation? Is it simply that you'd rather believe Dr. Mantik? FYI Dr. Riley (who has a Ph.D in neuroscience and specializes in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology) makes a compelling case for two shots to the head - one from the front and one from the rear - without resorting to claims of alteration. He is well worth checking out.

Indeed. Neuroscientist Dr. Joseph N. Riley pointed this out way back in 1993, writing: "There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow." I think it's a shame that Mantik persists in his claims of alteration instead of updating his arguments to deal with what the evidence actually shows. Which, as Cyril Wecht and Gary Aguilar noted in their recent letter to the editor of the AFTE Journal, is that "a bullet fired from the right front...tangentially struck the top right portion of JFK's skull...with the bulk of the bullet being deflected upward out of the skull...leaving the trail of fine fragments" seen on JFK's lateral skull X-ray.

Kellerman prepared a diagram for the HSCA showing precisely where he thought the entrance wound was: Richard Lipsey and Francis O'Neil did the same: Nobody at the autopsy saw an entry wound high in the rear of the skull.

Wasn't TMWKK before he began working at the museum?

That's why lone nutters so desperately cling to the ludicrous and completely unsupported "revised" entrance wound. They know that what neuroscientist Dr. Joseph Riley pointed out decades ago is absolutely true: "If the rear entrance wound is located where Humes et al. described it, it proves a second shot to the head. The fragments distributed in and the damage to the cerebral cortex cannot be due to the shot described by Humes et al.; the wounds are discontinuous."

Bill, did Gary share with you what he "really thought"? If so, I'm sure everyone would be interested to hear about it.

I didn't see that program, but I thought Gary remained impressed by, if he wasn't an advocate of, the acoustics evidence, which said there was a shot from the fence. Was he just contradicting himself, or did he give up on the dictabelt stuff? Gary once told me that he believed the shots that hit all came from the sixth floor but there was a missed shot from the knoll. Which, of course, was the HSCA scenario.

Trouble is, Duncan, you didn't prove Jim wrong. Because the show that snippet came from wasn't one of the many documentaries Gary "helped put on TV".

It's been a long time since I looked closely at the issues around the prints but, as I recall, all the other prints on the boxes were said to have been matched to Dallas police officers or Deputy Sheriffs. However, I'm sure I read somewhere - I can't remember where off the top of my head - that many of the matches the FBI made on those prints were only 3 or 4 point matches. This would not ordinarily be considered a match. I believe here in the UK a minimum of 14 points is required.

Which, if you ask me, is a very worthwhile task. There are far too many silly, factually baseless theories out there that need to be discarded if this case is ever going to move forward. The trouble is, as I know from experience, certain types of conspiracy theorists refuse to give up on the garbage regardless of how thoroughly it's been debunked. All they do is tell you that whatever evidence you have produced undermining their beliefs is "fake" or "altered". And then they call you a "lone nutter" or a "shill" for disagreeing. I've been there many times and, I'm sure, will be many times more.

Actually, Pat, Gary told me himself that he had the responsibility of deciding which books were carried by the store. I seem to recall he and I had this conversation when I asked him if the museum would be carrying Don Thomas's book. Despite the fact that he and Don were friends, and Gary obviously was a believer in the acoustics, I don't think they ever did stock it.

I never once heard Gary say that he believed Oswald acted alone. As far as I'm aware he always maintained, both privately and publicly, that he personally believed there had to be more to the story. A few years ago he told me that he believed all of the shots that hit came from the sixth floor but that there was probably a missed shot from the knoll. Which is basically the HSCA scenario. I also recall him saying that if there were two shooters he couldn't see how Oswald could have been either one of them.

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/07/gary-mack-curator-of-the-sixth-floor-museum-at-dealey-plaza-and-nationally-known-authority-on-jfk-assassination-has-died.html/

My condolences to his family. I had a few arguments with Gary but he wasn't a bad guy IMHO. And he knew the Kennedy assassination inside out. R.I.P.

Yes. He also wrote and submitted articles to forensic journals and gave testimony to the House of Representatives.

Like I said, Randy Robertson feels differently. And, being a radiologist, I would assume he knows more about this sort of thing than I do. The fact remains that Mantik's theory is not supported by any other expert. Even Cyril Wecht, who calls Mantik "an outstanding expert", told me that he sees "no basis to unequivocally contend that JFK’s autopsy photos and X-rays have been tampered with". So, if you ask me, it's far from proven. The other thing is that, as guys like Robertson, Don Thomas, and neuroscientist Joseph Riley have all pointed out, the X-rays as they stand do not support the official story. Riley and Roberston both state that the X-rays show the head was struck by two bullets; one from the front and one from the rear.

I disagree. Mantik got unusual OD readings for the back of the skull. But according to radiologist Dr. Randy Robertson there are numerous factors that could account for this: Any number of problems with the processing of the films could be called upon to account for the back area of the film being light. These include film/screen contact,temperature and time of processing, how the films were held while they were being dried, the exposure factors of the particular film that was used that night,whether or not a phototimer was used when the films were taken,whehter the films might have been fogged or any other defects in the film as well as numerous other technical factors. You may be getting a hint of the technical factors that could be responsible for the density readings that he has found. Any single one of these or any combination of these factors could be invoked to explain his findings.

Kenneth, the HSCA had two forensic anthropologists, Dr. Ellis R. Kerley and Dr. Clyde C. Snow, study the autopsy X-rays alongside pre-mortem X-rays of President Kennedy. They reported: “It is a well established fact that human bone structure varies uniquely from one individual to another...so that the total pattern of skeletal architecture of a given person is as unique as his or her fingerprints. Forensic anthropologists have long made use of this fact in establishing the positive identifications of persons killed in combat...” (Vol. 7 HSCA p. 43) After performing their analysis, the experts concluded that “the skull and torso radiographs taken at autopsy match the available ante mortem films of the late President in such a wealth of intricate morphological detail that there can be no reasonable doubt that they are indeed X-rays of John F. Kennedy and no other person.” (ibid. p. 45) On top this, a forensic dentist, Dr. Lowell J. Levine, compared the X-rays with JFK's previously existing dental records and reported that the “autopsy films…are unquestionably of the skull of President Kennedy” and that “the unique and individual dental and hard tissue characteristics which may be interpreted from the autopsy films...could not be simulated.” (ibid. p. 61) The findings of Kerley, Snow and Levine have never been questioned or challenged by any medical or forensic experts. There is no doubt that the X-rays are of President Kennedy's skull.