JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent

[David Von Pein]

You know, I always said you had problems with the English language.

And this is one reason I do not deal with you anymore [EVEN THOUGH HE'S "DEALING" WITH ME RIGHT NOW, AND DEALT WITH ME NUMEROUS TIMES RECENTLY IN THE "MONEY ORDER" THREAD TOO; GO FIGURE ~shrug~].

The point of the issue is not whether the x rays show an intact skull.

What Mantik is arguing is that the rear of the skull appears to be overexposed which is where a white patch appears. And it obstructs that so you cannot decipher what is back there.

And, as I said before, the ONLY possible reason for anyone to have wanted to add a "white blob" or a "white patch" to the X-ray would be to fake the X-ray to make it look like the back of the President's head was intact (i.e., with no missing bone).

Therefore, the bottom-line issue about this matter IS, indeed, "whether the x rays show an intact skull".

If that's NOT the "issue", then for Pete sake, what is?

You think Mantik believes that somebody faked an X-ray that already showed an intact back of the head?

That's really crazy, Jimmy. (Even for you.)

Edited December 10, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

DVP: [EVEN THOUGH HE'S "DEALING" WITH ME RIGHT NOW,

See how long it is before I deal with you directly again.

[Ron Ecker]

Greg posts on here one piece of very interesting evidence, and three people then jump on to say that now we know who killed Kennedy!

I mean, please. That is ridiculous.

I did not jump in and say that we know who killed Kennedy. I answered Jon's question about who had the power to alter the x-rays. I don't think that's too hard to figure out. But then that's just my opinion.

[David Von Pein]

DVP: [EVEN THOUGH HE'S "DEALING" WITH ME RIGHT NOW,

See how long it is before I deal with you directly again.

Oh, the horror! I'm back on Ignore. I'll surely be committing hari-kari now!

Geesh. What an ego.

Edited December 10, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

This thread is more than a bit ironic. I was in Dallas and saw Dr. Mantik's and Dr. Chesser's presentations.

1. Several years ago, on this very forum, I pointed out to Dr. Fetzer that the "white patch" noted by Dr. Mantik on the x-rays did not cover the very back part of the skull, where most CT's presume the fatal wound was located. He double-checked this with Dr. Mantik and Dr. Mantik told him I was correct. Since that time, Dr. Mantik has repeated this conclusion a number of times, at the 2013 Wecht Conference, on the CTKA website, and then again in Dallas. So David Von Pein is incorrect. Mantik's conclusion the x-rays were altered is not directly related to his belief the back of the head was blown out.

2. In fact... In recent years, Mantik has taken to claiming the x-rays, which most CTs automatically dismiss due to their mistaken belief Mantik has claimed they were faked to hide a blow-out wound on the back of the head...DOES show a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and are PROOF this wound existed, and therefore a conspiracy. Now, I've been following this with great interest, because it's bizarre beyond belief. Mantik now claims the x-rays prove conspiracy...in two ways. One is that they show a large blow-out wound in the middle of the back of the head. Two is that they show things--such as the white patch and the 6.5 mm fragment, that could only have been added through alteration.

3. It was some unease then that I went to Dallas to watch Mantik's latest presentation...in which he claimed the Harper fragment was blown-out the middle of the back of Kennedy's head. I had already committed to talking about the x-rays, and was unsure if I could keep my mouth shut should Mantik receive an overwhelming response while pushing some stuff I feel certain is inaccurate. He spoke on Saturday, and received a decent response. He was followed by Dr. Chesser, who said he'd recently visited the archives and had confirmed much of Mantik's OD measurements, and that he agreed with the bulk of Mantik's conclusions. (I don't recall if he said he agreed with the bit about the x-rays showing a large hole on the back of the head, but seem to think he did not.) He did, however, offer up one bit of detail that led me to believe he was sincere in his embrace of Mantik's findings. He claimed he confronted the archives over one of Mantik's findings--that there appeared to be emulsion over the writing on the x-rays they brought him, which proved they weren't the originals. He said that after he pointed this out, the archives staff grumpily brought out some x-rays in which the writing was on top of the emulsion...the originals. In other words, Chesser claimed he saw the originals, and suggested that Mantik had not. I don't think he would have made this claim if he was just there to prop up Mantik.

4. In any event, Bethesda witness James Jenkins was up next. Mantik interviewed Jenkins and William Law about a series of interviews they'd conducted some time back... The night before they discussed and played some of a new blu-ray of Jenkins discussing Kennedy's wounds with Paul O'Connor, Jim Sibert, Jerrol Custer, and Dennis David. On Saturday, if I recall, they played some of an interview in which several of Kennedy's honor guard were reunited with Jenkins and some of the Bethesda staff, to talk about the events of 11-22-63. In any event, I spoke to Jenkins afterward, and he confirmed, yet again, that the back of Kennedy's head between his ears was intact, but with shattered skull beneath the scalp. I then explained to him that ever since he spoke on the 50th, some have tried to use his words to suggest the back of the head was blown out, and that Horne and Mantik have tried to put this all together and have come up with Humes' performing some sort of pre-autopsy alteration of the head wounds. At this, Jenkins shook his head in disgust, and said something along the lines of "What are you gonna do? People are gonna think whatever they want to think." He then told me and several witnesses that he was with the body from its arrival until the beginning of the autopsy, and that the events described by Horne didn't happen at any morgue he'd been to. I then sought clarification by asking him if he meant that there was another morgue room down the hall that could have been used to do such a thing, and he looked at me like I was flat-out stupid and said there was but the one room where they could have done anything, and that it didn't happen there.

5. Next up was the producer of a new documentary on the Parkland Doctors. "Oh boy", I thought, "here we go. Some guy no one's ever heard of is gonna say he saw a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and everyone is going to ooh and ahh." But that's not what happened at all. Three doctors came onstage and told their stories: Salyer, Loeb, and Goldstrich, if I recall. Salyer was quite adamant that the head wound was on the temporal region in front of the ear, Loeb said it was on the top of the head, and Goldstrich never commented on the head wound. It was around this time, moreover, that I looked up and saw William Newman standing on the side of the room. I'd spoken to Newman before and he had confirmed his earliest statements and said that he saw a wound by the ear, and had failed to see one on the back of the head.

The thought then occurred that I'd slipped into an alternate universe. I mean, here I was at a convention dominated by conspiracy theorists, the majority of whom fervently believe the medical evidence was faked and that we should believe the eyewitnesses, and here were four witnesses in the room claiming to have seen Kennedy's head wound, all of whom were claiming to have seen it in a location that runs counter to where most CTs think the wound was located. And here was Dr. Mantik saying we should believe there was a wound in the location proposed by most CTs...because the x-rays prove it!!!!

In the minds of many of those in attendance at the conference, everything had been reversed... The authenticity of the x-rays now trumped the accuracy of the witnesses!!!

Welcome to Bizarro-World!!!

Edited December 10, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Ray Mitcham]

Statements by James Jenkins in a videotaped interview with Bill Law in 1998.

"Dr Humes who removed the brain, made an exclamatory statement. "the damn thing fell out in my hand."Jenkins said that "The brain stem had already been severed... Some of the areas fragmented along the sagittal suture (drew0 comment (to the effect) that they looked like they had been surgically extended..some of the fragmented areas looked like they hd been cut by a scalpel to expand them.

"To me," said Jenkins "this indicated that the brain had been surgically removed and then replaced."

"“I came out of that autopsy expecting them to say that there were two shooters, one in the right front, one behind” “What we saw that night was nothing relating to the (final and official) pathology report. There was no relation to it”

​If Jenkins was with the body from its arrival to the autopsy, when did the above scapel cuts take place?

Edited December 10, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[Pat Speer]

Statements by James Jenkins in a videotaped interview with Bill Law in 1998.

"Dr Humes who removed the brain, made an exclamatory statement. "the damn thing fell out in my hand."Jenkins said that "The brain stem had already been severed... Some of the areas fragmented along the sagittal suture (drew0 comment (to the effect) that they looked like they had been surgically extended..some of the fragmented areas looked like they hd been cut by a scalpel to expand them.

"To me," said Jenkins "this indicated that the brain had been surgically removed and then replaced."

"“I came out of that autopsy expecting them to say that there were two shooters, one in the right front, one behind” “What we saw that night was nothing relating to the (final and official) pathology report. There was no relation to it”

​If Jenkins was with the body from its arrival to the autopsy, when did the above scapel cuts take place?

Jenkins tries to be very careful, and consistent. But he's only human, and sometimes reverses himself, or at least appears to reverse himself. One attendee at the conference tried to play "gotcha" with him, and pointed out to him that Livingstone had claimed he'd said one thing, and that he was now saying something else entirely. To which Jenkins responded by claiming that Livingstone sometimes had trouble understanding what he'd been telling him.

Jenkins doesn't have a "theory" per se, or one he cares to share. From what I can gather, and I've read his interviews and talked to him several times now, he suspects there was more to it than Oswald, and that at least one shot impacted on the side of the head. He also believes the back wound was too low to support the single-bullet theory, and that the bullet creating this wound didn't even enter the body. And then there's his recollection regarding the brain. He says his impression was that the brain stem was at least partially cut before Humes went to cut it, and that when he transfused the brain it was apparent to him that the cut along the brain stem was uneven, like it had been cut, and then cut again. So, yes, it would SEEM like Jenkins would readily accept that the head had been reconstructed before he saw the body.

And he has never ruled that out, as far as I am aware. He is quite specific and quite clear when you talk to him, however, on several points, which all too many people seem unwilling to grasp. 1. The back of the head between the ears was not a gaping hole upon the body's arrival at Bethesda. It was shattered like an eggshell beneath the scalp. (Note: radiology tech Jerrol Custer, who helped position the skull for the x-rays, said much the same thing.)

2. IF the body was altered, it happened before the body arrived at Bethesda.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Ray Mitcham]

Not necessarily, Pat. It could have been altered at Bethesda before the above witnesses saw it.

[Pat Speer]

Not necessarily, Pat. It could have been altered at Bethesda before the above witnesses saw it.

No. That's the point, Ray. Jenkins insists that he was with the body the whole time after it arrived. People think that autopsy surgeons are responsible for the body during an autopsy. But that's just not true. The bulk of the dirty work--lifting the body from the casket, moving the body to the table, handling and weighing the organs, transfusing the brain, helping the morticians re-assemble the body, etc--is performed by the autopsy assistants, in this case, Jenkins and O'Connor. They later became brothers-in-law. As such, they had plenty of opportunity to discuss the autopsy. Even so, they had a number of disagreements regarding their recollections of the autopsy. Such is life, I suppose...

Telling Jenkins he might have missed Humes' performing a mini-autopsy before the main event is like telling the janitor of a playhouse he failed to notice that the star of the play came in early and cleaned up the theater before going on stage. It's deeply insulting to his intelligence. It was Jenkins' job to know what was going on in his morgue, and to be of assistance, and telling him he was oblivious to what was going on on the biggest day of his career is just insulting, and desperate.

There was no pre-autopsy surgery etc at Bethesda. Not unless Jenkins is lying. Which seems highly unlikely, considering his other statements. If I recall, Horne in his book expressed some frustration that Jenkins was not interviewed by the ARRB. If he was sincere about this, we should all be a little frustrated. If Horne had interviewed Jenkins, after all, he would not have been able to cough up his silly theory regarding the pre-autopsy autopsy at Bethesda.

Oh, wait, who am I kidding? Jenkins said much the same thing at the 2013 conference, and Mantik and Horne turned around and trumpeted his statements as supporting Horne's theories. Balderdash.

[Jon G. Tidd]

When, does Jenkins say, JFK's body arrived at the Bethesda morgue?

On what points do Jenkins and O'Connor disagree?

Are Jenkins's statements regarding the back of the head to be preferred to the witness statements maintaining there WAS a gaping hole in the back of the head?

If the too-dense white patch in the x-ray wasn't inserted to cover a hole, why does the patch exist?

I'm inclined very much to believe at least one bullet entered the back of JFK's head. The autopsy report in the National Archives has Humes stating that a bullet entry on the rear skull was discovered by placing a skull bone fragment into a void in the rear skull. If this void was not a hole in the back of the head, what was it?

[Ray Mitcham]

Jenkins said that when the body arrived it was wrapped in sheets. Other people, including Paul O'Connor, said that when it arrived it was in a body bag. The possibility arises that Jenkins wasn't there when the body first arrived.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[Greg Burnham]

Greg:

Thanks a lot for this.

Its really neat that Dave got another doctor to go along with his compelling evidence on the x rays.

I have always thought that if we ever got a TV special on the ARRB, Mantik's stuff on this subject would be mandatory to be included. Because it is pretty easy to understand yet its scientifically based. Plus its visual.

BTW, Lancer sounded pretty good. Were you there? Can you give us a rundown?

You're welcome, Jim. No, I didn't attend this year so I can't give a summary. In fact, this is the first anniversary in many years that I didn't give a presentation at one JFK Conference or another. However, I agree with you that these findings would be very important to include (or even feature) in any future documentaries on the subject.

No matter the tone of the "self educated" critic's comments that have thus far been offered here--or the dissenting views on what the findings may or may not mean--still, these lesser opinions are just that: uneducated opinions. They have no effect on the SCIENCE, which was replicated.

Irrespective of the ability (or inability as the case may be) of the eye witnesses to keep their stories self-consistent, what they witnessed must be taken along with these findings. Where the eyewitness statements are at odds with what the science proves, then the eyewitnesses are mistaken or the evidence was tampered prior to the eyewitnesses coming into contact with it. It is not a matter of: "If the eyewitnesses are correct then the science is faulty." It is a matter of replication. If these findings are replicable, as Dr. Chesser has shown they are, then they stand on their own merit irrespective of witness testimony to the contrary. However, where there are witnesses whose statements tend to support the SCIENCE and refute other witness' statements, then, again the SCIENCE prevails.

The correct explanation, then, would be one that incorporates both the SCIENTIFIC findings and the eyewitness statements. Where multiple eyewitness reports contradict each other, then the SCIENCE must be considered more reliable. Any who doubt or question the science should seek to replicate the findings themselves or in the company of a qualified expert(s).

[Jon G. Tidd]

Jim Di and Greg,

I admit to being a self-educated amateur when it comes to the assassination.

My post about who had the power to cause the x-rays to be fabricated was not intended to divert the discussion. It was intended to make the point that whoever caused the fabrication had to be someone beyond reach, both in the 1960s and in this decade.

[Greg Burnham]

Jim Di and Greg,

I admit to being a self-educated amateur when it comes to the assassination.

My post about who had the power to cause the x-rays to be fabricated was not intended to divert the discussion. It was intended to make the point that whoever caused the fabrication had to be someone beyond reach, both in the 1960s and in this decade.

Understood and thanks.

[Pat Speer]

Jenkins said that when the body arrived it was wrapped in sheets. Other people, including Paul O'Connor, said that when it arrived it was in a body bag. The possibility arises that Jenkins wasn't there when the body first arrived.

No, it doesn't. Jenkins and O'Connor worked together and were together when the body arrived. Jenkins insists he was there all day and was warned way ahead of time that Kennedy would be coming. He says he was waiting for him to arrive, was there when he arrived, and stayed with him until the wee wee hours of the morning, when the morticians were done with him.

Jenkins presents a barrier to Horne's theory Humes altered the body at Bethesda.

Hugh Clark, one of the honor guard, was also in attendance. He said he helped carry the bronze casket into the building and stayed on duty, guarding the rear entrance to the morgue. He said no other caskets other than the mahogany casket JFK was buried in were brought in during the autopsy. (I assume this can be overcome by supposing this took place after the arrival of the shipping casket.)

Edited December 10, 2015 by Pat Speer