Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
James DiEugenio

Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Cliff look at the video on my post JD mentions. Then tell us what that round spot is.

And please don't  tell us it's  matted bloody  hair. It's  not.

Then look at the rear wound illustration in the video. With his head tilted down at 313 that spot and beveled hole would line up quite nicely.

Then look at Chessers PDF.

It's  called connecting the dots. Or spots in this case.

 

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

We're talking about something completely different. If you want to believe that everything has been faked and altered in this case, then it's your right to do so.  Honestly, I never knew that about you - I'd always thought I sensed some sense and sensibility in you, Cliff.  I guess not, but that's fine.

But regarding this post, we're talking about the black dot in the autopsy photo. I don't think that photo's been faked but if you want to, then the post will make no sense to you (there I go again with the word "sense").

But the black dot is exactly where Chesser puts a dot in one of his presentation photos. And his demo about the skull x-rays shows that that black dot wound as well as the fragment spray, lines up with a frontal shot. Then, if you look at my video there's a combination of the rear head wound combined with the so-called mystery photo. With Kennedy's head tilted downward at 313, a front shot and exit lines up pretty well and of course we see the violent head and body movement too.

But again [Cliff], if you think the Z film, the photos, the x-rays, the clothes, the color of the limo and the moon landings were faked then this presentation will appear faked to you as well.

 

Michael,

Are you aware of the fact that Michael Chesser claims in his presentation that there is evidence of alteration in the autopsy skull x-rays and some of the autopsy photographs? Are you aware of his claim that the brain photographs in the archive are not those of John F. Kennedy's?

Michael Chesser's presentation is what is being praised here. It is what got Larry Hancock talking about the evidence tampering at Bethesda. So are you gonna start railing against and belittling him (and Larry Hancock and Jim DiEugenio, etc., etc.) the way you do the rest of us whenever we suspect evidence tampering?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chesser's work seems to me of crucial interest.

This presentation was worked on by him for about an extra week to prepare for display.  Because most of his oral presentation explaining it was curtailed at the mock trial.  So he had to add frames to this to make it more clear.

I advise anyone who is not familiar with his work to go through it twice to fully understand what the guy is saying.  And also to understand the comparisons he is drawing in order to prove his points and show that there was a front skull entry in JFK.  

At the Houston mock trial, the prosecution was allowed to repeat two mantras to impact the jury:

1.) There was no evidence of any other weapons in Dealey Plaza except the MC bolt action rifle.

2.) There was no hard evidence of any shots from the front.

The evidence of the discovery of both a 7.65 Mauser and and 7.65 Mauser shell should have been used to counter the first charge.  Bill Simpich only used the rifle discovery, and then added it may have been in error, even though David Josephs  has shown on the Argentine model, it is stamped as Mauser just as Roger Craig said it was.  And where on earth did the shell come from if not from a Mauser rifle? (But give Bill credit for presenting Brian Edwards who did  a nice job showing that the wrong rifle was in evidence and no paper trial exists to Oswald getting the rifle from USPS.)

If Mike Chesser had been able to complete his linked presentation, his testimony and exhibits would have significantly neutered the second charge. There now is forensic evidence of a front head shot.  And this is a neurologist speaking.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the JFK Lancer conference this year and saw the presentation on the enhanced skull x-rays.  I believe it was this presentation that also showed an enhanced, slow-motion HD version of the Z film.  It was obvious Jackie is chasing the back of her husband's head on the limo trunk - and it's on her side.  She grabs the piece of skull just before it goes off the edge and just before Hill jumps on board.  An amazing act of heroism on both their parts.

I too now believe JFK was shot twice in the head - one from the back and, just a moment later, one from the front.  I base this on the enhanced Z film, the Jenkins/Chesser presentation, and the fact that three witnesses I spoke with all said the same thing about the sound of the shots: POW!--------------------------------POW!POW!  The last two came right on top of each other, which negates the theory that one Carcano did the job.

In truth, I've always questioned a shot from the front because any good conspirator trying to frame Oswald would shoot from behind.  But I no longer believe that.

The Dealey operation has been nearly impossible to figure out because the subterfuge started early and was fast and furious to confuse everybody.  Some of it surely instigated by the conspirators and some of it was just the bureaucratic system's natural tendency to cover its arse. And we are talking about absolute experts in propaganda who ran the show.

For what it's worth, here are other observations I gleaned from the conference:

  • Buell Wesley Frazier brought up a good point - if the WC was so convinced that LHO had the Carcano in that bag, why didn't they just fit the gun back in the bag for all to see?  I think he might be right - it was never done.  Buell said he thinks the gun came in from the trains on the dock.  That's where most packages came into the building.
  • The owners of the Oswald rooming house said LHO was nothing like the WC made him out to be.  Sociable, friendly and kind to children who loved him.  Chose the room right off the dining room closest to people and activity.  Two Dallas police officers lived at the same residence.  The current owner and granddaughter of the original owner was 11-years-old when Lee lived there.  Said her two younger brothers were fighting outside.  Lee said he would take care of it.  Outside she heard him say, "You're brothers and you ought to love each other.  And you should never ever harm another human being."  She said the incident took place two weeks before the assassination.
  • Shocked that NOT ONE "conspiracy theory" was proffered, contrary to the media's representation of JFK researchers.  Just the facts, ma'am, make of them what you will.
  • Hancock and Simpich appeared to be closest to truth of the plot for me - when Harvey met Roselli in April '63 and Morales possibly joined them.  I asked Malcolm Blunt what he thought of that meeting and he said, "You don't bring Morales unless you want to get something done.
  • I also came with a question in my mind after hearing more about MC - what did Oswald do or learn there that he couldn't have done or learned with a couple of phone calls?  Why did he actually have to travel to MC?  If you believe the lone gunman theory, he traveled there to go to Cuba.  But with his limited resources, wouldn't you call first?  MC from NO by bus had to have been and probably still is a major undertaking and highly uncomfortable to boot, I would guess.  Why not call the Russian and Cuba consulates?  He kinda did anyway, allegedly.

One more thought I came away with:

The CIA is always claiming its files can't be released due to reasons of "national security."  

The only national security issue they're concerned with is the dissolution of the social contract between the American people and their government, IMHO, and what that would mean to their considerable hold on secret, unaccountable power.

 

 

 

Edited by Mike Kilroy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chesser's work Should be a MSN 60 minutes special if justice was a true part of reality.  Most concise, straightforward presentation of the previously murky medical evidence regarding the head shot(s) ever.  Grassy Knoll shooter And Dal-Tex Building simultaneously?  Yep.  Too incredulous to believe?  Nope.  Reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the last slide of Mantik's presentation, he finally acknowledges something he'd been avoiding for years. In response to Jim D and Albert Rossi's observation that his OD readings for the 6.5 mm fragment are nearly identical to his OD readings for a thin slice of bullet attached to the back of a skull, he claims this was just a coincidence, and that it merely demonstrates that the x-rays for the fragment and thin slice were taken at different exposure settings.

Well, hello, this is what I've been saying for a decade now. A thin slice of metal can look like a burning slice of sun if the image is exposed long enough. And a layer of overlapping bone a white patch...

Now, it's time for the other shoe to drop... It's time for Mantik to finally acknowledge that the variation of OD levels within an image is also a product of the equipment used, and the settings used.

And that he has never ran controls on x-ray equipment remotely similar to that used on 11-22-63, to see what kind of OD readings one might expect...

I mean, think about it...

Mantik's extensive "scientific" training has led him to...

claim the Z-film was faked since it doesn't show a limo stop (Note: he later acknowledged that many of the "limo stop" witnesses he relied upon had been misquoted or misrepresented)

claim the z-film was faked by having a number of frames removed (I'm not sure if he still believes this, but most of his fellow z-film doubters later came to believe this was nonsense)

claim the z-film was faked because it didn't show Mary Moorman standing in the street (Note: I spoke to Mary Moorman in Dallas and she repeated, as if for the thousandth time, that she stood in the street before the motorcade arrived, but was standing exactly where she is shown in the z-film as the limo passed).

claim the "white patch" on the lateral x-ray overlay a gaping hole on the back of the head, even though the "white patch" is exclusively on the side of the skull and doesn't reach the back of the skull (Note: he later changed his mind about this and started claiming the "white patch" overlay missing brain, not bone).

spread Lattimer's lie that the fragment apparent near the middle of the forehead on the x-rays was the largest fragment removed during the autopsy (even though all those witnessing the removal of the largest fragment claimed it was removed from behind the right eye--approximately two inches away from the forehead fragment)

have Jim "no planes hit the Pentagon or World Trade Center, and all the recent school shootings have been faked, and, oh yeah, Paul McCartney died back in the sixties" Fetzer write the forward to his book.

Mantik, to my mind, is just not reliable. Now, maybe my judgment is clouded on this. So don't trust me.

Read a book or even an online article, on radiology, so you can understand what factors affect the appearance of an x-ray image. And then ask yourself if the OD readings on JFK's first films' failing to match the OD readings on 19 final films provided by Doug DeSalles... actually means Kennedy's x-rays have been faked. Or if this just another one of Mantik's silly theories...

I mean, after 25 years, not one working radiologist or x-ray tech has backed Mantik in his claim the OD readings prove the x-rays have been faked.

One should wonder if there's a (non-conspiratorial) reason for this...

 

 

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael,

Are you aware of the fact that Michael Chesser claims in his presentation that there is evidence of alteration in the autopsy skull x-rays and some of the autopsy photographs? Are you aware of his claim that the brain photographs in the archive are not those of John F. Kennedy's?

Michael Chesser's presentation is what is being praised here. It is what got Larry Hancock talking about the evidence tampering at Bethesda. So are you gonna start railing against and belittling him (and Larry Hancock and Jim DiEugenio, etc., etc.) the way you do the rest of us whenever we suspect evidence tampering?

Sandy - I think you're misconstruing the notion that I think "nothing at all" was faked in the case. That's not true. I believe strongly that the BYP's are fake to implicate Oswald; I think the gun purchase records were manufactured to show LHO bought the gun so he could be blamed for the murder.  And if you want to call this "believing in fakery," I do think some testimony is "fake" like for example how the White Russian folks all lined up to say LHO beat Marina.

But yes, I don't think the funniness that some people think - like the Z film, and then the Nix film, and then the Muchmore film, and then the plaza photography, and then LHO's military photo with his 13-inch head - was faked.

As for Chesser, he seems to say that the original x-ray looks messed with compared to the enhanced version (or vice versa). Is it true?  I don't know.  But his research about the mark in the x-ray and the fragment spray showing a frontal shot - combined with my January post about that black spot, as well as the combo photo I made in the January video showing how the mystery photo shows the outward beveling seems plausible to me.  Then, of course, Kennedy's sudden and violent rearward throwback at 314 further makes the plausibility more...plausible.

Personally, I think Kennedy was really relaxed that day. After the big reception he got and the smiles he and Jackie showed when leaving the airport, he was probably surprised that this trip was working out. You can actually see this as the limo is leaving Love - they're both waving to the crowd and they kind of look at each other with smiles as if "holy xxxx - much better than we thought."

I also think his back brace was holding him up so he could relax a little in the car seat. Notice when Connally is hit, you don't see any momentum and body jerks on him - probably nervous, stiff and upright when the bullets hit him.  Not so for Kennedy - that quick 6 second burst was just pushing him around in the back brace, which is why you can see the shot momentum so much.

I've seen head shots more than I care to admit and I think these guys know it's coming so they stiffen up.  For Kennedy, no, which is why you see his body slam backward so much. And if you watch this one, you see the same thing - the guy holding his arm up seems to just be walking around totally oblivious to the gunshot to the front side of his head that is to come.  You see it flail back like Kennedy in the Z film.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxNm9MNTY3UHVrR1k

Edited by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Cliff you just said you thought the autopsy photos were fake.  Then you said the clothes were faked.  Anything else...?

I never said the clothing evidence was faked.  Far from it.  Please read more carefully...

The Fox 5 photo is provably faked -- the rest of the autopsy photos are worthless because they were not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol, and there is no chain of possession for them.

If you want a gold star for micro-analyzing inferior evidence James DiEugenio is your man, that's his department.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Chesser's work Should be a MSN 60 minutes special if justice was a true part of reality.  Most concise, straightforward presentation of the previously murky medical evidence regarding the head shot(s) ever.  Grassy Knoll shooter And Dal-Tex Building simultaneously?  Yep.  Too incredulous to believe?  Nope.  Reality. 

So we can put more people to sleep?

The case for conspiracy is prima facie -- the bullet holes in the clothes too low -- and is heavily corroborated.

To argue the fact of conspiracy on technical grounds is playing the Cover Up Game.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there a no-fly zone over the clothing evidence, which proves a frontal shot beyond doubt?

Because there's no glory in pointing out the obvious.

Self-aggrandizing hustlers can't do anything with it.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Bulman: 

Chesser's work Should be a MSN 60 minutes special if justice was a true part of reality.  Most concise, straightforward presentation of the previously murky medical evidence regarding the head shot(s) ever.  Grassy Knoll shooter And Dal-Tex Building simultaneously?  Yep.  Too incredulous to believe?  Nope.  Reality. 

 

I agree with you Ron. And I like the work on the Dal Tex bldg also.  

But we know the way that stuff is rigged.  At least about 90% of the time. And Alec Baldwin talked about this at the dinner.

An interesting exception is this:I heard from Larry Schnapf that one of the exhibits used by the defense was purchased by CBS.  It was a series of interviews by the surviving Parkland doctors on how their descriptions of the head wounds differ from what the eventual autopsy report says they were.  This was not on the Livestream broadcast of the trial. That should be good if CBS really does go ahead and broadcasts it. I expect there will be a donnybrook inside the executive offices over this.

BTW, about Baldwin.  I recall the first time I saw him on an actor's interview show.  This was many years ago and I did not really know who he was as he was just coming up and transitioning from TV to film.  The host was ending the show with one of those questions:  When you get to heaven with St. Peter at the gate and you get to ask him one question, what would it be?

Baldwin thought for a few seconds.  He then said, "Could that one bullet really have gone through Kennedy and Connally?"

And he goes and sponsors that dinner in Houston, years later when he is a much bigger star.  Cool guy.  Wish there were more like him in Hollywood. But they are too busy saving whales and trees.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Kilroy:

Thanks for those comments.  That was the first Lancer Conference I have missed in several years.

Really glad to hear your reaction.  It was an informational seminar.  

Jenkins is always interesting isn't he?  What a gutsy guy.  If only the other side could shut him up.  I think he is such good witness to all the obstruction in the autopsy room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I agree with you Ron.

But we know the way that stuff is rigged.  At least about 90% of the time. And Alec Baldwin talked about this at the dinner.

An interesting exception is that I heard from Larry Schnapf that one of the exhibits used by the defense was purchased by CBS.  It was a weirs of interviews by the surviving Parkland doctors on how their descriptions of the head wounds differ from what the eventual autopsy report says they were.  This was not on the Livestream broadcast of the trial. That should be good if CBS really does go ahead and broadcast it. 

BTW, about Baldwin.  I recall the first time I saw him on an actor's interview show.  This was many years ago and I did not really know who he was as he was just coming up and transitioning from TV to film.  The host was ending the show with one of those questions:  When you get to heaven with St. Peter at the gate and you get to ask him one question, what would it be?

Baldwin thought for a few seconds.  He then said, "Could that one bullet really have gone through Kennedy and Connally?"

And he goes and sponsors that dinner man-years later when he is a much bigger star.  Cool guy.  Wish there were more like him in Hollywood.

My understanding is that the long-anticipated film about the Parkland doctors was shown in Houston, and that it's been picked up for distribution. If it was picked up by CBS that would be huge.

Those assuming this film will be an endless string of doctors claiming they saw a blow-out wound on the back of the head will be sorely disappointed, however. Three of the doctors appeared at the 2015 Lancer Conference. Two of them said they saw the head wound. They both said the wound they saw was on the top and right side of the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I've seen head shots more than I care to admit and I think these guys know it's coming so they stiffen up.  For Kennedy, no, which is why you see his body slam backward so much. And if you watch this one, you see the same thing - the guy holding his arm up seems to just be walking around totally oblivious to the gunshot to the front side of his head that is to come.  You see it flail back like Kennedy in the Z film.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxNm9MNTY3UHVrR1k

Or,

You could show someone filming from the side, someone getting shot from the front and watch the brain matter exit the rear. Which we fail to see on the extant Z film.

 www.flickr.com/photos/83590696@N06/24895373188/in/shares-DH7266

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mr. Kilroy:

Thanks for those comments.  That was the first Lancer Conference I have missed in several years.

Really glad to hear your reaction.  It was an informational seminar.  

Jenkins is always interesting isn't he?  What a gutsy guy.  If only the other side could shut him up.  I think he is such good witness to all the obstruction in the autopsy room.

Jenkins was a no-show. They claimed he'd had transportation problems. But I'm not so sure. I spoke to him in 2013, and then again in 2015. He was clear on two points that some might find surprising. One is that there was no pre-autopsy or whatever performed by Humes. And two is that the low back of the head was shattered but held together by the scalp. i.e. there was no occipital blow-out wound where all too many claim there was an occipital blow-out wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×