JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent

[Ron Ecker]

lS

Jenkins and O'Connor worked together and were together when the body arrived.

Yet Jenkins said the body arrived wrapped in sheets, and O'Connor said it arrived in a body bag. You know what? I don't think they were together when each saw the body arrive.

[David G. Healy]

C'mon. We will never be taken seriously it we continue to do this stuff. We will (rightly) be perceived as a bunch of jejune axe grinders.

Oh, brother. As if your 20+ theories of untenable junk deserve to be "taken seriously". Hilarious....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-114.html

Re: the silly "White Blob Added To The X-Ray" theory....

"Mantik is the fellow who found a "suspicious" white blob over the back of Kennedy's skull in the lateral X-rays. He sees this as evidence of conspiracy, but he's never dealt with the fact that the HSCA published these x-rays in the 70s and there was no such blob then. The x-rays showed the back of Kennedy's head intact. Why would the Evil Minions tamper with evidence that SHOWED WHAT THEY WANTED IT TO SHOW?" -- John McAdams; December 22, 1999

Ben Holmes (currently at the AMAZON Forum) has been driving you nuts for years concerning the x-ray "white blob" that happens to be 6.5mm in diameter. You've failed to address the question of which there are many, concerning the "white blob." In fact, you've turned tail as recently as a few weeks ago.

Edited December 11, 2015 by David G. Healy

[James DiEugenio]

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).

Well put, pointed and succinct.

[David Von Pein]

Ben Holmes (currently at the AMAZON Forum) has been driving you nuts for years concerning the x-ray "white blob" that happens to be 6.5mm in diameter.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, Healy. The "white blob" being discussed in this thread has nothing to do with the "6.5 mm. object/opacity" (which Mantik thinks is made out of cardboard; ~chuckle~).

Edited December 11, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

lS

Jenkins and O'Connor worked together and were together when the body arrived.

Yet Jenkins said the body arrived wrapped in sheets, and O'Connor said it arrived in a body bag. You know what? I don't think they were together when each saw the body arrive.

Y'know, it's funny. They were brothers-in-law and they discussed this off and on for years. And yet apparently they never thought of the possibility the body came in twice, and that they each missed an entrance. And there's a reason for that... They worked together, side by side.

I mean, really. It's as if no one has ever had a job where they knew what was going on around them. My brother has worked in hospitals for over 30 years, running the plant and keeping the equipment up to code, etc, and I guarantee you even HE would know if the President of the United States was brought into the hospital two different times in two different wrappings.

[Ron Ecker]

lS

Jenkins and O'Connor worked together and were together when the body arrived.

Yet Jenkins said the body arrived wrapped in sheets, and O'Connor said it arrived in a body bag. You know what? I don't think they were together when each saw the body arrive.

Y'know, it's funny. They were brothers-in-law and they discussed this off and on for years. And yet apparently they never thought of the possibility the body came in twice, and that they each missed an entrance. And there's a reason for that... They worked together, side by side.

I mean, really. It's as if no one has ever had a job where they knew what was going on around them. My brother has worked in hospitals for over 30 years, running the plant and keeping the equipment up to code, etc, and I guarantee you even HE would know if the President of the United States was brought into the hospital two different times in two different wrappings.

Then in all their years of discussing the sheets and the body bag and such, did Jenkins and O'Connor ever decide which one of them was crazy?

[Ray Mitcham]

“Jenkins stated that the standard incisions in the cranium required to remove the brain — a ‘skull cap’ (his term for a craniotomy) — were not done, because they were not necessary.

He thought this might be explained by prior incisions, meaning that some surgery had been done prior to the autopsy.

He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found unusual. Jenkins recalled Dr. Boswell asking if there had been surgery at Parkland Hospital.

He recalled Dr. Humes saying: ‘The brain fell out in my hands,” as he removed the brain from the body.'”

If no cranial surgery took place at Parkland, Pat, where do you think the "prior incisions" were made?

Edited December 11, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[Sandy Larsen]

[Jenkins] 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.)

Pat,

Jenkins told David Lifton that there were skull fragments in the casket. He describes their putting them back together, and his description included the following:

"I would say the parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head -- it was a large gaping area .... I'm laying my hand on the back area of my skull .... if I spread my fingers and put my hand back there, that probably would be the area that was missing .... When they put it back together, it would probably have been about the size of your fist -- which was an actual hole missing."

If there was no hole in the back of the scalp, how did the fragments of bone escape?

Furthermore, later in the interview Jenkins commented on the back-of-head autopsy photographs:

"When I told Jenkins that autopsy photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he was incredulous. 'That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible.' "

(Best Evidence, 1980, page 616, 617)

Apparently either Jenkins' story has changed, or you have misremembered what he told you.

[Jenkins] 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.)

Jerrol Custer told David Lifton that the wound in the skull was posterior in the skull and said that

".... he exposed, and returned to the morgue, X- rays showing that the rear of the President's head was blown off."

(Best Evidence , p. 620)

FWIW, in May 29, 1992 and November 18, 1993 press conferences Custer repeated his consistent claim that the current X-rays are forgeries.

(http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm)

Edited December 11, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

From "Reclaiming History":

"In addition to the testimony of the Parkland doctors, conspiracy theorists cite the recollections and testimony of several eyewitnesses in attendance at the autopsy as further "proof" that the exit wound was to the right rear or back of the president's head. Once again, these eyewitness accounts (some of them, recollections over three decades old) are supposed to supersede the autopsy photographs and X-rays that show the large defect was primarily to the right front.

Remarkably, the list by conspiracy theorists of eyewitnesses to this supposed back-of-the-head exit wound is so expansive it frequently even includes two of the autopsy pathologists, Drs. Humes and Boswell, who we know concluded that the bullet exited in the right front of the skull. Apparently the fact that they mentioned in their autopsy summary that the large exit defect "extended somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" got them a ticket into the club of rear-exit believers.

Indeed, even Captain John H. Stover, commanding officer of the Naval Medical School, who reported in 1978 that he saw

"a wound on the top of the head," qualified for the back-of-the-head list.

The list includes three Secret Service agents (William Greer, Roy Kellerman, and Clint Hill) and two FBI agents (James Sibert and Francis O 'Neill) whose testimony points to a right-rear or back-of-the-head exit wound.

The above is not to suggest that all of the lay witnesses at the autopsy thought the exit wound was to the right rear or back of the president's head. For instance, James Curtis Jenkins, a lab technician during the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that the large head wound was to the "middle temporal region back to the occipital." [see MD65; Page 4]

Chester Boyers, the chief petty officer in charge of the lab at Bethesda who was present at the autopsy, said the exit wound was to the right front of the president 's head.

Richard A. Lipsey, a personal aide to General Wehle, told the HSCA it was obvious that a bullet "entered the back of his head and exited on the right side of his head."

Also, at the London trial, Paul O'Connor, the naval hospital corpsman who assisted in the president's autopsy, testified he "assumed" that the bullet to the president's head "had hit him from the rear and had come out the front only because of what other physical evidence was present."

When I said to O'Connor, "You told me over the phone that this large massive defect to the right frontal area of the president's head gave all appearances of being an exit wound, is that correct?"

O'Connor: "Yes, on the front."

None of the aforementioned people or witnesses had a close-up view of the president's head. Only four people in the autopsy room did, the three autopsy surgeons and John Stringer, the chief medical photographer for the navy at the autopsy who took the only photographs of the president's head.

When I spoke to Stringer, he said there was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right ear." And in an ARRB interview on April 8, 1996, Stringer said, "There was a fist-sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear." [MD227; Page 3]

Though, as we shall see later, Stringer's recollection of matters is questionable, he said he remembers this very clearly. When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear of the president's head, he said, "No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the president's head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone."

So we see that all four people who were much closer to the president's head than anyone else, and whose business it was, as opposed to the many other people in the room, to know where the wounds were, have no question in their mind that the exit wound was to the right front side of the president's head, not the rear."

-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 408-410 of "Reclaiming History:

The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (2007)

Edited December 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

[Greg Burnham]

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!!!

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]

[Sandy Larsen]

From "Reclaiming History":

"In addition to the testimony of the Parkland doctors, conspiracy theorists cite the recollections and testimony of several eyewitnesses in attendance at the autopsy as further "proof" that the exit wound was to the right rear or back of the president's head. Once again, these eyewitness accounts (some of them, recollections over three decades old) are supposed to supersede the autopsy photographs and X-rays that show the large defect was primarily to the right front.

Remarkably, the list by conspiracy theorists of eyewitnesses to this supposed back-of-the-head exit wound is so expansive it frequently even includes two of the autopsy pathologists, Drs. Humes and Boswell, who we know concluded that the bullet exited in the right front of the skull. Apparently the fact that they mentioned in their autopsy summary that the large exit defect "extended somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" got them a ticket into the club of rear-exit believers.

Indeed, even Captain John H. Stover, commanding officer of the Naval Medical School, who reported in 1978 that he saw

"a wound on the top of the head," qualified for the back-of-the-head list.

The list includes three Secret Service agents (William Greer, Roy Kellerman, and Clint Hill) and two FBI agents (James Sibert and Francis O 'Neill) whose testimony points to a right-rear or back-of-the-head exit wound.

The above is not to suggest that all of the lay witnesses at the autopsy thought the exit wound was to the right rear or back of the president's head. For instance, James Curtis Jenkins, a lab technician during the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that the large head wound was to the "middle temporal region back to the occipital." [see MD65; Page 4]

Chester Boyers, the chief petty officer in charge of the lab at Bethesda who was present at the autopsy, said the exit wound was to the right front of the president 's head.

Richard A. Lipsey, a personal aide to General Wehle, told the HSCA it was obvious that a bullet "entered the back of his head and exited on the right side of his head."

Also, at the London trial, Paul O'Connor, the naval hospital corpsman who assisted in the president's autopsy, testified he "assumed" that the bullet to the president's head "had hit him from the rear and had come out the front only because of what other physical evidence was present."

When I said to O'Connor, "You told me over the phone that this large massive defect to the right frontal area of the president's head gave all appearances of being an exit wound, is that correct?"

O'Connor: "Yes, on the front."

None of the aforementioned people or witnesses had a close-up view of the president's head. Only four people in the autopsy room did, the three autopsy surgeons and John Stringer, the chief medical photographer for the navy at the autopsy who took the only photographs of the president's head.

When I spoke to Stringer, he said there was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right ear." And in an ARRB interview on April 8, 1996, Stringer said, "There was a fist-sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear." [MD227; Page 3]

Though, as we shall see later, Stringer's recollection of matters is questionable, he said he remembers this very clearly. When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear of the president's head, he said, "No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the president's head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone."

So we see that all four people who were much closer to the president's head than anyone else, and whose business it was, as opposed to the many other people in the room, to know where the wounds were, have no question in their mind that the exit wound was to the right front side of the president's head, not the rear."

-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 408-410 of "Reclaiming History:

The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (2007)

I could refute or discredit every single one of the example testimonies given here by Bugliosi and quoted by DVP. But I know it would make no difference to DVP, and Bugliosi is dead. So I won't waste my time.

But for anyone who sees DVP's post and is wondering about these people's testimonies, I suggest they look for the complete history of these people's testimonies on Dr. Aguliar's List of Head Wound Witnesses and decide for themselves what is fact and what is fiction. Just do a search on the page for the person's name.

Almost every witness to Kennedy's head wound said that there was a large hole on the rear right side of the head. Dr. Aguliar lists over forty of them, all of them professionals and most of them medical professionals. Some of them changed their minds when they were told that the autopsy photos showed no hole on the back of Kennedy's head. Others held their ground and insisted that the photos had been doctored.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

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!!!

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]

It seems clear to me that Pat merely misunderstood or misinterpreted what he heard at the presentation. An honest mistake, of course.

[Jon G. Tidd]

DVP,

I asked you arguendo on another thread whether if there was a conspiracy, the conspirators would stop at anything to cover their tracks.

You agreed not that there was a conspiracy but that if there was one, the conspirators would have stopped at nothing.

I respect your view there was no conspiracy. Which you maintain consistently.

Here there is reason to believe in conspiracy, the reason being unbelievable x-rays.

The issue isn't what the HSCA did or didn't do. The year 1978 is 37 years ago, an eon in terms of technology. The issue is whether current expert opinion based on modern technology leads to a conclusion of conspiracy. It does clearly IMO.

So I believe your view is at odds with expert opinion based on modern technology.

Your view is inflexible and unchanging. Modern technology is evolutionary.

[David Von Pein]

Sandy,

But what about the Zapruder Film? It most certainly does NOT show a big hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head. In the Z-Film, the exit wound in JFK's head is clearly located toward the FRONT and RIGHT SIDE of the head, above the President's right ear....




So that makes THREE separate areas of photographic evidence which all corroborate each other with respect to the location of the large wound in President Kennedy's head:

1. The autopsy photos.

2. The autopsy X-rays.

3. The Zapruder Film.





Do you, Sandy, really think that ALL THREE of the above pieces of photographic (visual) evidence are fake in this case?

If so, that's a heck of a lot of fakery you've got to prove. And so far, no one has come close to proving that ANY of those three photographic items have been faked or altered.

And there's also the fact that the closest witnesses to the head shot in Dealey Plaza, who had a good view of the RIGHT side of JFK's head as it was exploding in front of them, said things in their first interviews on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63 that support the idea that the President's large head (exit) wound was located just exactly where we find it in the autopsy photos and X-rays and in the Zapruder Film---i.e., above JFK's right ear. Those witnesses include Abraham Zapruder himself and Bill and Gayle Newman....

-----

Edited December 12, 2015 by David Von Pein