Jump to content
The Education Forum
Keyvan Shahrdar

JFK X-RAY - Where is rear bullet entry point?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Any doctors in this forum? 

According to the lateral fracture lines in JFK's skull, where did the bullet enter JFK's skull from the rear?

I believe I already know where the bullet entered JFK's skull from the rear.  The follow-up question is: How could that bullet exit the top right of JFK's skull from a downward trajectory?

What I find interesting in the lateral lines of the side profile of JFK's skull, there seems to be a break in the lateral lines. Looks like a bone was put there to cover a hole.  It could just be that the bone around the ear is denser than other bones.  The other observation is the other bone separated by lateral lines to the top left of the bone in question also looks like it covers a hole.  Interesting!

The frontal x-ray shows the lateral lines as well emanating from what looks like a circle in the back of JFK's skull.

JFK-Head-Xray.jpgXRay-1.png

Edited by Keyvan Shahrdar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, David.  This is quite informative.  The more I look at the side profile of the JFK x-ray, the more it looks like cement was used to conceal a hole in the back of the head.  I am still on the fence about it, I just don't know if these types of anomalies are normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're very welcome...

Mantik addresses that area specifically as well... the hole was covered over by crushing out the white which translates to solid bone from right side to left side of head in that one area... add the "black" areas where brain should have been..

The other thing you may wish to read is EBERSOLE's ARRB testimony...  he was in charge of the Xray techs...  and claims the SS told him to take another set of autopsy photos...

The initial films showed the usual metallic fragments in the skull but no evidence of a slug, a bullet. This was a little bit disconcerting. We were asked by the Secret Service agents present to repeat the films and did so Once again there was no evidence of a bullet. I assume you are familiar with portable X ray It is not the kind that gives a fine diagnostic but it is helpful in picking up metallic fragments. It would stand out like a sore thumb either intact or shattered.
The autopsy proceeded and at this point I am simply an observer. Dr. Humes in probing the wound of entrance found it to extend perhaps over the apex of the right lung bruising the pleura and appeared to go toward or near the midline of the lower neck.
I believe by ten or ten thirty approximately a communication equipment location had been established with Dallas and it was learned that there had been a wound of exit in the lower neck that had been surgically repaired. I don't know if this was premortem or postmortem but at that point the confusion as far as we were concerned stopped.
The only function that I had was later in the evening, early in the morning, perhaps about twelve thirty a large fragment of the occipital bone was received from Dallas and at Dr. Finck's request I X rayed these. These were the last X rays I took. The X rays were taken by the Secret Service that evening; I did not see them again.


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Greetings, Keyvan. Chapters 18 and 18b at patspeer.com examine the x-rays and refute a lot of the crap barfed up by agenda-pushers on both sides of the fence. While Dr. Mantik is both eloquent and educated, he has been wrong about most of his public positions (e.g. the Z-film being faked via the removal of frames to hide in part that the limo stopped) and his position on the x-rays is no different.

I discuss his claims off and on in Chapters 18 and 18b, and devote the latter part of chapter 18e to a more detailed explanation of our disagreements.  Here is a sample from chapter 18e.

Let us now demonstrate the fatal folly of following false messiahs. (White this is undoubtedly unfair, I couldn't resist the alliteration.)

Here is Harrison Livingstone in the October-November 1993 issue of The Investigator, discussing Mantik's first trip to the archives: "Dr. Mantik found that the large hole on the right side in the back of the head described in the autopsy report and by the Dallas medical witnesses was covered up in the X-rays."

And here is Mantik himself at a Livingstone-put-together press conference days later:
"What someone did in taking the x-rays of Kennedy during the autopsy was to put a great white patch on the back of the lateral X-ray to cover up the hole, which is why the area is so extraordinarily white," (Source: Reuters news Article on the 11-18-93 press conference, published in Livingstone's book Killing Kennedy, published 1995.)

And, should one assume the writer of this article, Jeanne King, to have misreported Mantik's words, here is an AP report by Richard Pyle, on this same news conference, which was similarly republished by Livingstone in 1995: "Dr. David Mantik, a radiologist from Rancho Mirage, Calif., said he recently conducted 'optical density' tests on the photos in the National Archives, finding that they were 'composites' that blocked out the large exit wound and positioned a bullet fragment to suggest a shot from the rear."
 
And here is Dr. Randy Robertson in a 2-4-94 letter to Jim Lesar found in the Weisberg Archives: "David also has said that the "big white patch"was put on the back of the skull x-ray to hide the large area of bone that was missing there because a bullet exited out the back of the head."
 
And here is Mantik himself in a 4-10-94 letter to researcher Harold Weisberg found in the Weisberg Archives: "The primary question now is -- and always should have been: why is there no obvious missing tissue at the back of the head? What we see instead on the lateral X-ray is a remarkably white area, where it should appear relatively dark, secondary to significant missing tissue."
 
 
Mantik's claim the x-rays were altered to hide a hole in the back of the head thereby became big news, at least in the eyes of the research community. Here is Livingstone again in Killing Kennedy (1995), which devoted an entire chapter to Mantik and his findings: "Dr. Mantik found beyond any question that the x-rays are altered images intended to hide the position of the large defect as described in the autopsy report itself...We can see the unusual whiteness on this area of the x-rays with the naked eye." And here he is later in the book: "the rear part of the hole described by all witnesses is nowhere to be seen in the lateral x-rays. That is because it is covered over." And then later down the page: "light readings on post-mortem x-rays on other cadavers (provided by Doug DeSalles, M.D.) in the area of what Dr. Mantik calls the 'great white patch' over the large defect area in the back further proves that it cannot be a true feature of the skull."

And it wasn't just Livingstone that was hawking Mantik's wares. The second-to-last page of the Winter 1996 issue of the Kennedy Assassination Chronicles featured a large ad for a 7-part video series by Dr. James Fetzer, priced at 19.95. In this series, Fetzer discussed the recent findings of a number of researchers, including Dr. Mantik. Leading off the list of the most important "new JFK assassination findings" presented in this series is "that autopsy x-rays of JFK's cranium were fabricated to conceal (a) massive blowout to the back of the head." In part 3 of the series, now available on youtube, Dr. Fetzer discussed Dr. Mantik's finding one could add a white patch to an x-ray. He then relates "In that way you'd have a patch that concealed exactly the area that all the witnesses testified had been blown out at the back of the President's head."

Mantik's claim spread far and wide... Here is how Noel Twyman described the computer-enhanced right lateral x-ray in his book Bloody Treason (1997):
"This x-ray is considered by Dr. David Mantik to have been altered to conceal evi­dence of a blow-out of brain from the right hemisphere of the head through a hole in the rear of the skull. This was accomplished by either making a composite x-ray in which area P was masked to conceal the absence of brain or bone in that region, or by shielding that portion of the head when the x-ray was taken."

 
And here is how Stewart Galanor presented Mantik's findings in Cover-up (1998): "Dr. Mantik was forced to conclude that the autopsy X-rays of President Kennedy's head had been altered. They were composites. The original autopsy X-rays had been rephotographed with a radio-dense patch super­ imposed over the rear portion of the head, the region precisely where the Parkland doctors had seen a large gaping wound."
 
And here is how Mantik's number one supporter, Dr. James Fetzer, presented Mantik's findings in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000): "As Mantik has discovered through the employment of optical densitometry studies, the lateral cranial x-ray has been fabricated by imposing a patch over a massive defect to the back of the head, which corresponds to the eyewitness reports..."
 
And here is Fetzer again in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003): "Dr. David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D...has discovered that the right lateral cranial x-ray has been altered by imposing a patch to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head..."
 
And here is Fetzer in Reasoning About Assassinations, an article published in the International Journal of the Humanities (2006): "In response to the controversy ignited by the release of Oliver Stone's film "JFK", I organized a research group of physicians, physicists, photo-analysts and attorneys to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy...Our research has...led to the discovery of...deceptions in the death of JFK. The most important are that the autopsy x-rays have been fabricated (a) to conceal the massive blow-out to the back of the head that more than forty eyewitnesses reported and (b) to add a 6.5 mm metallic slice in an apparent effort to implicate an obscure World War II Italian Mannlicher-Carcano as the weapon used."
 
And here is Fetzer again on a TV program entitled The World's Greatest Mysteries (2008): "The President's autopsy has been a source of controversy in that regard which extends to the autopsy x-rays which were fabricated to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head caused by a shot from the front."

And here is how author Jim Douglass presented Mantik's findings in JFK and the Unspeakable (2008): "There was far too much bone density being shown in the rear of of JFK's skull relative to the front. The X-ray had to have been a composite. The optical density data indicated a forgery in which a patch had been placed over an original x-ray to cover the rear part of the skull--corresponding to the gap left in part by the Harper fragment, evidence of an exit wound. The obvious purpose was to cover-up evidence of a shot from the front that, judging from the original Parkland observations, had created an exit hole the size of one's fist in the back of the head..."
 
And here is how Mantik's closest associate Doug Horne presented Mantik's findings in an interview published in Dick Russell's book On the Trail of the JFK Assassins (2008): "The two lateral skull x-rays, Mantik has demonstrated, had a very dense optical patch superimposed on the copy films over the occipital-parietal area behind the ear to mask the blow-out or exit wound seen in Dallas in the back of the head."
 
And here is what Horne had to say about Mantik's findings in his own book Inside the ARRB Vol. 1, published the next year: "Mantik posited that the purpose of placing the  alleged forged composite copy films of the skull into the official record was twofold...in the case of the two lateral skull x-rays, the purpose of the suspected artifact (which Mantik calls the 'white patch') was to obliterate, or rather mask, an area of missing bone (and brain) in the right rear of the skull--and therefore to erase evidence of being shot from the front..."

And here is Horne in Inside the ARRB, vol. 2, published at the same time as vol. 1: "If Dr. Mantik is correct that a dense patch is present behind the right ear in x-rays 2 and 3--and that x-rays 2 and 3 are not originals, but instead are forged composite copy films of the real laterals, with a patch or large artifact covering up a blow-out behind the right ear superimposed, then this could account for the differences in perception between the many autopsy witnessed who recall the back of the head missing, or blown out, at autopsy, and who believed that night that President Kennedy had been shot from the front, and the perceptions of the Clark Panel, the HSCA panel, and most people who view x-ray no. 2 and 3 today, who see apparent evidence of an exit wound in the right front of the skull."

 
And should that not be clear enough, here is Horne in vol. 2 a bit later: "Mantik believes that the 'great white area' in the posterior skull (the occipital-parietal area, to be precise) on the lateral x-rays is an optical 'patch' (i.e., a 'light-blasted' area) superimposed on top of the authentic x-ray image...The transmission ratios between area 'P' and the ear canal are different on the JFK lateral skull x-rays because the forged composite copy films created after the autopsy were imperfectly created--that is, the right lateral was 'light-blasted' more than the left lateral was during the copying process, when the occipital-parietal blowout was obliterated by exposing the copy film to extra light in that region."
 
And here is how Mantik presented his findings in his 2009 JFK Lancer presentation: "The White Patch was likely added in the dark room, to both left and right lateral X-rays. Its purpose was to obscure the loss of tissue at the back of the skull and its effect (especially alongside the very dark area at the front) was to suggest a bullet entry from the rear that blew out tissue from the front."
 
And here is how Mantik, in an interview uploaded to youtube on 3-31-10, responded to his friend and supporter James Fetzer's assertion the white patch was probably created "in order to conceal the massive blow-out to the back of the head reported by more than 40 different witnesses including massive, experienced physicians at Parkland Hospital"...crickets. Fetzer said the white patch was perhaps Mantik's "most celebrated" discovery, and said it was probably done to conceal the large defect observed at Parkland Hospital, and Mantik didn't deny it. And, should one assume Mantik was simply being polite, one should note how Mantik responded to Fetzer's subsequent question about Kennedy autopsy radiologist John Ebersole. When asked whether Ebersole would be the "prime candidate" for being the one who'd "effectuated the obfuscation of the defect," Mantik replied: "Yes, he would."
 
And here is how...just kidding. I'm sure you get it by now. Mantik said the white patch covered the hole on the back of the head noted by the witnesses and the research community echoed his claims. As he also claimed the Harper fragment had exploded from the back of the head, moreover, it seemed obvious Mantik had simultaneously claimed the white patch covered the hole from which the Harper fragment had exploded. That's what everyone thought. And I dare say that's what Mantik wanted them to think.
 
But then I came along. From leafing through some radiology books, and putting two and two together, I realized that the central claim regarding Mantik's findings--that the white patch covered a hole on the back of Kennedy's head--was hoo-ha, as the "white patch" was on the side of the head, and did not reach the back of the head.

I began stating as much online. Now, this led to attacks by Dr. Fetzer in which he called me the worst researcher ever, etc. But my efforts were not in vain. On 10-11-10, in a Fetzer post on the Education Forum, Mantik responded to my assertion the Harper fragment did not correlate with the white patch. He wrote: 
"I have never demonstrated exactly where on the lateral skull X-ray the Harper would appear, but it would be at the very rear." Well, the white patch is not at the very rear. He had thereby confirmed my conclusion.

 
But he failed to state as much publicly. As a result, writers continued to cite either Mantik's original claim about the white patch, or Fetzer and Horne's subsequent claims. Here is Phillip F. Nelson in LBJ: Mastermind of the JFK Assassination (2013): "Dr. Mantik's expert analysis of the two lateral skull x-rays proved conclusively that 'a very dense optical patch [was] superimposed on the copy films over the occipital-parietal area behind the ear to mask the blow-out or exit wound seen in Dallas in the back of the head.'"
 
But alas, all things must pass. On October 17, 2013, as part of our "duel" presentations on the Harper fragment at the Wecht Conference in Pittsburgh, Mantik finally admitted: "The white patch has nothing to do with the missing Harper fragment!"
 
Now this didn't come as a surprise. I'd noticed some years earlier that Mantik had retreated from his earliest claims regarding the white patch. To wit, his 2003 paper summing up his findings had said merely that "the white patch was almost certainly added in the dark room. Its purpose was to emphasize the resulting dark area in front, which suggested that a bullet had exited from the front." Well, heck, that's a long cry from claiming its purpose was to conceal the occipital-parietal blowout described by the Parkland witnesses.
 
And this was nothing new. A 12-12-98 post by Mike Griffith on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup reported:
 
"In other correspondence with me, Dr. Mantik pointed out that the large white patch is NOT in the same area as the right occipital-parietal wound described by so many witnesses. In light of this, I asked him to explain why the white patch was placed on the x-rays. He replied as follows:

MANTIK: TO MISDIRECT ATTENTION TO THE DARK FRONTAL AREA--IT LOOKS MORE LIKE AN EXIT THEN. ALSO, IN REALITY, THERE WAS BRAIN MISSING AT THE REAR (WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH A REAR EXIT) BUT BY USING A WHITE PATCH THIS MISSING BRAIN WAS OBSCURED."

So the white patch which Mantik originally claimed covered a hole now only covered up the missing brain near the hole. Now, what had changed since Mantik first popped on the scene, claiming it had covered a hole? Well, a quick review of Mantik's writings shows that he never mentioned the Harper fragment in his early articles, and that he first claimed it fit into the middle of the back of Kennedy's skull in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). So it seems clear from this that somewhere between 1994 and 1998 he realized he couldn't have it both ways--a blow-out hole on the right side as well as on the middle of the back of the head--and decided to ditch his original claim the white patch covered a hole on the right side.

But did Mantik acknowledge that he'd changed his mind on this issue? Or that, at the very least, he'd misled the research community on this very important point?

 
No, of course not.
Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Good reading Pat.  Well from the lateral skull lines, a bullet entered from the back.  I do not know if that bullet exited the skull as the entry hole seems to be too low for it to have exited in the front.  A nurse did claim that there was a bullet lodged between JFK's ear and neck; this may be the shot.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2496691/JFK-killed-mystery-bullet-Nurse-joined-desperate-attempts-save-President-death-claims-spotted-bizarre-pristine-bullet-neck-seen-again.html

From looking at the white patches as stated in your article, I wonder if that bullet came from the front or if it traversed from left to right on the right side of the back of the head causing an exit on the right rear side of the head.  This shot must have come after the first shot that caused the lateral skull lines.

Under my hypothesis, three shots to the head of the president.  Obviously, this is pure conjecture on my part; there has to be a good explanation for all the damage to the head.

Edited by Keyvan Shahrdar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all subscribe to the head alteration theories....  From the descriptions at Parkland to the Autopsy there appears to me to be quite a difference...

Humes describes the damage in his testimony...  I did a representation of what he said on an image of the skull/brain...  Either three bullets did hit him in a number of places or HUMES attempted a craniotomy among other things...

It must be remembered that skull does not fall from the scalp simply because it is broken... there are connections which require severing so that skull and brain can be removed regardless of how damaged it is...

"We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the sagittal plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately (1 & 2) 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm.  The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex.
The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.
The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration.
In addition, there was a
(3) laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is the corpus callosum. Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain.
When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution.
Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.

(4) When the brain was turned over and viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies. This laceration partially communicates with an oblique 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions."

5a31bba233de0_Brainandskulldetail-IllustratedwoundsaccordingtoHUMES.thumb.jpg.92ff8fea44cfc896457d4e4c759cb84c.jpg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

According to the lateral fracture lines in JFK's skull, where did the bullet enter JFK's skull from the rear?

A guy named Dr. Chesser published this a while back about the possible *rear* bullet exit wound:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-application-of-forensic-principles-for-the-analysis-of-the-autopsy-skull-x-rays-of-president-kennedy-and-a-review-of-the-brain-photographs

Months before he published it, I posted on this forum about an odd black hole seen in one of the autopsy photos. It concurred about what Chesser wrote above:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23367-for-debate-the-hairline-spot-seen-in-the-autopsy-photo/

I also made an illustration combining two of the photos to show how a front to back bullet created a tangential wound that exited the rear with beveling around the hole. This would also explain the back and to the left body movement of Kennedy that takes place at Z313.

rear+wound.jpg

Edited by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I don't think its fair to say someone is misleading people when they are not here to reply, I am posting Dave Mantik's reply to that accusation 

Speer’s Semantik Swamp—a Response by David W Mantik

January 7, 2018

“He who has never sinned is less reliable than he who has only sinned once.”

–Nassim Nicholas Taleb (Antifragile, 2014)

Pat Speer wants us to believe that (in my work) the White Patch covered the Harper Fragment (HF) bone defect. But I have never said—or written—that.

In Speer’s Education Forum post of Wednesday (edited at 02:20 PM, probably on January 2, 2018) he lists many quotations about my work, including these descriptors about the posterior skull defect: “hole” (14 times), “exit wound” (4), “tissue” (4), “defect” (5), “blowout” (3), and “blowout of brain” (1). However, only two of these quotes come directly from me, and both of these use “tissue”—the word “bone” is never mentioned.

Speer even confesses that he drew his own conclusion about the role of bone: 

As he also claimed the Harper fragment had exploded from the back of the head, moreover, it seemed obvious Mantik had simultaneously claimed the white patch covered the hole from which the Harper fragment had exploded.

My earliest recorded description of the White Patch appears in Assassination Science (1998), edited by James Fetzer, which can be found online:

httSpeer://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf (p. 153).

Although the White Patch was a central focus at that New York press conference (October 1993), the HF was not mentioned. After all, the point of my presentation was the artefactual nature of the White Patch—not its purpose.

Speer even admits this:

Mantik's writings show that he never mentioned the Harper fragment in his early articles, and that he first claimed it fit into the middle of the back of Kennedy's skull in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000).

On the Education Forum (2010), I stated (as Speer quotes): "I have never demonstrated exactly where on the lateral skull X-ray the HF would appear, but it would be at the very rear." 

In my e-book (available on Amazon), JFK’s Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis and a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment, see Figures 15A and 15B (also shown here):

  

These are X-ray images are from an experiment performed by Gary Aguilar, MD, in December 1997, which convincingly demonstrate how far posteriorly the occiput would appear on a lateral X-ray. (Note the red arrow, which identifies the metal pentagon on both views.) As I state in the e-book, in February-March 1993 (nearly 25 years ago now) I had anticipated Aguilar’s demonstration by 4 years. I had used lead wires to outline the HF on the occiput of an authentic skull—on both AP and lateral X-ray views. These original X-rays are still in my files. I am not at home now, or I would also post these; the 1993 dates are clearly displayed on them. [The three-headshot scenario—first articulated by Doug Horne—is also discussed in my e-book.]

That there was indeed a posterior blowout (or hole, or defect, or exit wound) of brain tissue is clear from the Parkland Hospital witnesses. But the objective evidence for this missing brain derives from data obtained directly from the JFK autopsy X-rays at the National Archives, as cited in “Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination: The Brain Enigma,” by David W. Mantik and Cyril H. Wecht (The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X (2003), edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease):

One final point is remarkable: the [OD] measurements showed that on the right side, at the level of the cerebellum, only about 30% of the normally expected brain tissue remained.

This book is available at Amazon, and can even be purchased for e-readers.

To summarize: The defect left by the missing HF derives from the upper occiput—as I showed in my 1993 X-rays. On the lateral JFK skull X-ray, this missing bone lies posterior to the White Patch. But there was indeed a posterior blowout—of brain tissue. It should be emphasized that the missing occipital bone probably included smaller bone fragments just superior to the HF. Furthermore, when McClelland’s (adjacent) bone flap swung open, the hole in the bone was appreciably larger. (See my e-book for further discussion of these issues.)

Regarding Speer, my previous critique (2010) of his work is here:

httSpeer://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-autoSpeery-x-rays-david-mantik-vs-pat-Speer

Included in that critique is Speer’s “Rogues’ Gallery” of 29 researchers (plus all the doctors in the 1992 ABA Mock Trial) who made mistakes in this JFK case. My name is present, but the ever-infallible Speer is missing.

A definitive, albeit somewhat droll, corollary site (2016) is here:

http://assassinationofjfk.net/jfk-windmills-pat-Speer/

Highlighted in red at that site are disconcerting questions for Speer. In the nearly two years since they appeared, he has persistently evaded them. This site also includes a summary by Mike Chesser, MD, a neurologist, who corroborated my conclusions after his own visits to the Archives. He also visited the JFK library in Boston.

Here are just two (now very old) paradoxes for Speer to contemplate:

1.     The lateral JFK skull X-rays show essentially no brain in a very large frontal area (on both left and right sides), yet the brain photographs show virtually no missing brain on either side. How can this be?

2.     How did that 6.5 mm object arise—especially since it was not seen at the autopsy by dozens of witnesses?

My peer-reviewed paper about this 6.5 mm object, with an explanation for it, is here:

file:///C:/Users/david_000/Downloads/177-1-868-1-10-20150629%20(6).pdf

My own website is here:

http://themantikview.dealeyplazauk.org.uk/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2018 at 2:13 PM, David Josephs said:

Hey there Keyvan

https://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf  this is the Dr. Mantik paper on the xrays and what they tell us...

If you haven't already, this is an important read

DJ

ps - here are some better views of the fragments and their locations....5a4d2b7c13296_Humessawcutacrossforehead.thumb.jpg.7ad5a2fb4e7a578461f7abeb0d75d85c.jpg

 

Dave, that circular black area in the forehead in the lower right picture appears to be a piece of curly hair that caught the shadows just right.

JFKAutopsy_Morphsmallermoreframes.gif

 

You should also know that there is only flimsy evidence that Tom Robinson arrived early enough to the autopsy to see the original condition of the large head wound. Tom Robinson and John Van Hoesen of Gawler's funeral home arrived early, but Joe Hagan and Joe Gawler have given statements saying that they all got there together between 11:00 - 11:45 PM.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2018 at 7:47 AM, Ray Mitcham said:

Doesn't look anything like this back of the head does it.

 

 

The open-cranium photographs show the skull after it was opened up to remove the brain. They should not be used to judge how large the original wound was.

Brighter versions of the back wound photograph also show the hairline better.

 

 

15355745.thumb.jpg.35e123ba4d9b2afd8976a7d49feafba6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.ajronline.org/toc/ajr/154/3

https://www.ajronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2214/ajr.154.3.2106206

PUPH2FV.png

 

So this medical journal is wrong and the victim in Figure 5 actually has almost 1/2 of the brain missing without any exit wound for either of the 6 entrance wounds? or is just the pressure of gunshot wounds creating air between the tissues?

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, Mantik's response to my post supports the worst conclusion one could take from my post---that he'd concluded that the "white patch" on the lateral x-rays did not overlay a supposed "blow-out" wound at the right rear of Kennedy's skull, but said nothing while his biggest supporters made this claim over and over and over again in books, articles and presentations with many times the reach of Mantik's subsequent volumes, in which he finally admitted I was correct, and that his biggest supporters had been misleading their readers and listeners.

P.S. Here are Mantik's first published comments on the "white patch"...

"What someone did in taking the x-rays of Kennedy during the autopsy was to put a great white patch on the back of the lateral X-ray to cover up the hole, which is why the area is so extraordinarily white," (Source: Reuters news Article on the 11-18-93 press conference, published in Livingstone's book Killing Kennedy, published 1995.)

He said the white patch covered up a hole. Now he's trying to claim the white patch covered up that there was missing brain at the back of the head, and that the hole on the skull itself was actually at the far back of the x-ray and not apparent to the eye.

Oh wait, that's right. I'm supposed to feel guilty for accurately reporting what's been said, and how what's been said has misled the vast majority of those studying the medical evidence. My bad.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2018 at 3:47 PM, Micah Mileto said:

Dave, that circular black area in the forehead in the lower right picture appears to be a piece of curly hair that caught the shadows just right.

JFKAutopsy_Morphsmallermoreframes.gif

 

You should also know that there is only flimsy evidence that Tom Robinson arrived early enough to the autopsy to see the original condition of the large head wound. Tom Robinson and John Van Hoesen of Gawler's funeral home arrived early, but Joe Hagan and Joe Gawler have given statements saying that they all got there together between 11:00 - 11:45 PM.

As I see it, the testimony of the Non-Military and low level military holds so much more credibility than the same from the "official" sources.  Flimsy or not...  I believe Robinson before I believe Humes, Boswell, Finck, Ebersol, etc....

As for a shadow... I respectfully disagree...

What credibility do you give Father Huber and the the drastic injury over the left eye?

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

×