Paul Kerrigan

Here is Dr. Mantik's trajectory. It was only discussed briefly in Assassination Science. Apparently, it is discussed more in Murder in Dealey Plaza ( I'm not sure as I have not read the book).

I agree, the photographs are not the best way to determine the location and extent of the injuries. It is the autopsy doctors to whom we refer for that information. And from that we learn that Kennedy was shot once from behind in the upper back five inches below the boney proturberance next to the right ear. And once in the back of the head, exiting the front. Thank you.

Well, I don't know how a wound fired into the external occipital protuberance would exit the top of the head like that. The autopsy pathologists never put the wound in the place shown by the autopsy photographs.

Being open minded and not making a total fool out oneself are two different things. There is no way Thompson could write a book and claim the man in the doorway was Oswald, he would laughed out of the research community. You guys tried that once and when it didn't hold water you quickly discarded it. But no where does Thompson imply that Oswald was guilty. That is exactly the point I was making. He doesn't believe that the shots could have been fired in the time allowed, (which in 1967 was inccorectly thought to be 5.6 seconds--today we know it was closer to 8.3) The only real voice Thompson has now is with his ongoing feud with Jimmy Fitzer, Jack White and the lunatics that claim the Zapruder film was tampered with. Thompson is very selective in wghat he writes about Oswald. For instance, Thompson knows that the New York period of Oswald's life reveals some very telling details about his personality and anti-social behavior, hence he skips that part of the Oswald story entirely. Thompson also conviently skips all reference to Dr. Renatus Hartogs, who talked with Oswald extensivey when Lee was a child. No mention of him either in Thompson's book. Thompson even shots himself in the foot when he admits that over 80% of all witnesses who expressed an opinion as to the number of shots said they heard three. And only 2% said they came from more than one location--a key element to Thompson's unprovable theory of shooters on top of the Records Building and the TSBD and behind the grassy knoll. Of course not a single witness that day said they heard shots come from three different locations--but why let that stand in the way of a good theory? Thompson is very selective in which witnesses he refers to also. Concerning the location of the head wound, only tow doctors of those that treated the President in Dallas still claim they saw a wound in the rear of the Presiden't head. Thompson only quotes from one of those two, Robert McClelland, he ignores the testimony of the doctors who don't agree with his theory. Gerald Posner on the other hand refers to the statements of ALL of the doctors and then evaluates their relative merit and validity in light of other evidence.

You mean the new testimony of the Dallas doctors? You of all people should know that original testimony is far more reliable then testimony many years later. And all the original testimony of the Dallas doctors says that the wound was in the right back part of the head.

Have the autopsy photos and x-rays been faked or altered? Most Warren Commission defenders will point to the HSCA's (House Select Committee on Assassinations) two expert panels that authenticated the photos and x-rays. They were "authenticated" by very narrow criteria and they did not explain the indications of alteration in the autopsy materials. The HSCA also concluded the following (taken from Mike Griffith's JFK Assassination page). They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

- Some of them were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

- In many of them, scaler references are entirely lacking, or, when present, are positioned in such a manner that it is difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features from anatomical landmarks.

- Not one of them contains information identifying the victim, such as his name, the autopsy case number, and the date and place of the examination.

- Due to their lack of documentation and poor quality, the defense could have challenged the use of these photos as evidence in a trial, and even the prosecution might have had "second thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative."

- The onus of establishing their authenticity would have rested with the prosecution. Harrison Livingstone correctly notes that this point and the previous one can rightly be seen as an admission that the photos would have been prima facie inadmissable as evidence in a court of law, and that the prosecution could have used them only after establishing their validity.

There are also no autopsy tags visible, no photos of the brain after removal, no whole body photographs, no photos of the skull reassembled, and no photo of the chest cavity.

The HSCA authenticated the photos by using these face measurements to prove the man in the photos is indeed John F. Kennedy. But if the photos are genuine but have been altered in some way, the above graphic would not automatically prove authenticity.

In the top-of-the-head photos and the right profile photos, three bloody red stripes hand down giving the impression of a massive wound on the top of the head. However, in the black and white photos, the stripes are white and light gray. This is a photographic impossibility if orthochromatic film was used. When orthochromatic film is used, red becomes black, not white or light gray. Photographic expert Steve Mills has this to say:

"Orthochromatic film, unfiltered, records blue very lightly and red very darkly. This makes perfect sense in [autopsy photos] F1 through F5. Yet, here's a supposedly bloodied scalp in F6 and F7 recorded as light gray. This can be done with a red filter on ortho film, but the blood drops on the towel show me this is not the case. The scalp can't be gray and three bloody spots still be dark if a filter was used. It is common to use ortho film in forensic photography to show differences and details in red and blue areas. But this is no proof. The record declares one type of film, and the photos declare either another or fraud."

Mills then goes on to say:

"They [the autopsy photos] also show Groden's color shots to be frauds. Let me explain.

1) Let's say it was pan b/w. (black and white) F6 and F7 would have to be shot with a blue filter to lighten the stripe. That would darken the supposedly bloody scalp. You can't have it both ways, i.e., light red AND light blue, so there's no red filter either. This would not work. So, if it's truly pan film, then the scalp is not bloody skin but brain matter.

2) Let's say it's ortho film. The blue stripe will always be light and the red will always be dark. No filter is required if the scalp is really brain tissue, but a red one is still needed to lighten blood. But here the bloody spots prove this is not the case once again. So do the bloody marks on his shoulder.

So, here's the result: They probably used ortho film and no filtering of any kind. THAT IS BRAIN and NOT SCALP. We can see that NO COMBINATION OF FILM AND FILTRATION CAN GIVE YOU B/W PHOTOS THAT WILL JIBE WITH GRODEN'S COLORS. THEY HAVE TO BE FAKE"

Also, many witnesses saw a large wound in the back of the head and commented that the top of the head was virtually undamaged. Some also said that the large wound to the head could not even be seen when Kennedy was laying flat on the table.

The autopsy took place in the morgue at Bethesda Naval Hospital but several medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy stated that the background seen in the photos is not that of the morgue. In the left-profile photo, a black phone can be seen on the wall. But these techinicians said that there was no phone in that position in the morgue. Earl McDonald, a medical photographer at Bethesda who trained under James Stringer, told the ARRB (Assassination Records Review Board) that he had never seen anyone at Bethesda use a metal brace like the one that is see holding up the head in the autopsy photos.

One of the photographer at the autopsy, Floyd Riebe, stated in a filmed interview that the wounds in the autopsy photos differ from his recollections. Riebe recalled a large, gaping wound in the back of the head. Not what it shown here. The other photographer, James Stringer, also stated in a filmed interview that he was not the one who took the photos of the back of the head. Who did then?

In an important new disclosure, Saundra Kay Spencer stated that she didn't process any of the black and white autopsy pictures and didn't process any of the ones in evidence now. This supports the contention that there are two sets of autopsy photos, one altered and one genuine.

The X-Rays

In the x-ray of the head, you can see about two-thirds of the brain is missing. You can also see a trail of small metal fragments from the supposed entrance wound to the supposed exit wound in the front. But how can this be? There is no brain there to support the metal fragments.

Fragments can also be seen in the frontal lobe. But Dr. Richard Lindenberg, expert consultant for the Rockefeller Commission, stated that the whole frontal lobe is missing. But there is nothing supporting these fragments if the frontal lobe is missing.

The x-rays also show a large, 6.5 mm fragment near the supposed entrance wound. But this was not seen by the autopsy doctors or the radiologist. When the chief autopsy doctor Dr. Humes testified before the Warren Commission, he said nothing about a 6.5 mm fragment anywhere near the back of the head. Also, it is highly unlikely that a fully metal-jacketed Carcano bullet would shear to form that fragment. Detective Shaun Roach, an Australian forensics expert had this to say:

". . . due to the inherent strength of the 6.5 mm Carcano jacket, I also believe that it would NOT shear off a fragment upon entering the head, then deposit that fragment on the outer table of the skull, either above or below the wound"

But Dr. David Mantik discovered that the fragment isn't really a bullet fragment at all! After studying the x-rays and using optical density measurements, Dr. Mantik discovered that this object had been superimposed over a smaller, genuine bullet fragment. Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate the process by which the 6.5 mm fragment could have been created.

Dr. Mantik has also concluded that the x-rays are abnormal. After studying the radiographs at the National Archives, Dr. Mantik discovered the measured light in the large white area on the right lateral x-rays is "a thousand times the maximum seen in any other x-rays."

The Bethesda x-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, stated that on November 23, he was told to tape bullet fragments to pieces of skull and x-ray them. He was told they were for a bust of JFK's head but no such bust ever surfaced.

Thanks to Michael T. Griffith for his page on the JFK Assassination. That is where I got most of my information.

Photographic evidence must be vouched for in a court of law. If there is massive eyewitness testimony against the photos, the surely would not be allowed to be entered into evidence. The HSCA concluded the following about the photgraphs.

- They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

- Some of them were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

- In many of them, scaler references are entirely lacking, or, when present, are positioned in such a manner that it is difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features from anatomical landmarks.

- Not one of them contains information identifying the victim, such as his name, the autopsy case number, and the date and place of the examination.

- Due to their lack of documentation and poor quality, the defense could have challenged the use of these photos as evidence in a trial, and even the prosecution might have had "second thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative."

- The onus of establishing their authenticity would have rested with the prosecution. Harrison Livingstone correctly notes that this point and the previous one can rightly be seen as an admission that the photos would have been prima facie inadmissable as evidence in a court of law, and that the prosecution could have used them only after establishing their validity

He has no firm conviction about Oswald's guilt, he acknowledges the fact that the Mannlicher-Carcano was used in the killing. He also believes that some shots came from the Book Depostitory. He is also the one of the biggest critics of Zapruder film tampering.

If he was not an open-minded researcher, he would not have dispelled the myth about Oswald in the doorway

He does present both sides. Have you read the book? He takes an honest look at eyewitness testimony and physical evidence, determining for himself what is accurate.

I forgot to add. I have no idea who John McAdams is, but I will find out and then try to understand why you would think I am one of his "cronies." I own nearly 120 books on the Kennedy assassination and he didn't write any book I own. However, from your paranoia I can safely assume that he is also convinced of Oswald's guilt, therefore ANYONE who has reached the same conclusion MUST be influenced by John McAdams, otherwise they could not have EVER reached an intellectual conclusion on their own. Is that your position? Could it be that I reached my opinion of Oswald's guilt after observing you conspiracy nuts chasing each other's tails for forty years, chasing after every hare-brained theory to come down the pike? Could it be that I reached my conclusion of Oswald's guilt after watching so called conspiracy "researchers" look for bullets that have never turned up, seek fingerprints that have never been produced, study photographs with magnifying glasses and microscopes for hidden gunmen that never appear, invent imaginary meetings between Oswald, and Ruby, Tippit, and who knows who, that never took place? Could it be that I learned that Oswald was guilty after seeing the conspiracy nuts waste forty years and not produce a single suspect besides Oswald that fits with the available evidence? If the conspiracy "research" community had produced even a single speck of evidence wouldn't NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, BBC, or any news organization jump at the chance to be the first to reveal this earth-shattering news? Oh wait, let me guess...the conspirators are in control of ALL news outlets so they don't dare reveal the conspiracy news. Is that it? Whoever John McAdams is, rest assured he has played no role in my understanding of the Kennedy assassination. It is the failure of the conspiracy "researchers" that has convinced me more than anything else that Oswald acted alone. I have read garbage by Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, Henry Hurt, Anthony Summers, Jimmy Fetzer, Robert Groden, Harold Livinstone, Dick Russell, Harold Weisberg (with whom I spent an afternoon in 1991 at his home in Maryland looking through many of his voluminous files) Jack White, Cyril Wecht, Edward Epstein, Walt Brown, and others and still haven't seen a single one of them answer all the evidence in the case. Now I have to go, I need to see who the famous John McAdams is and find out why conspiracy nuts fear I am one of his "cronies."

I'd be very careful when calling anything from Josiah Thompson "garbage." His book Six Seconds in Dallas is one of the best and most unbiased books on the case. If you really want to read a distorted and biased account, read Case Closed.

maynardsthirdeye: Two different photographic experts have watched some of Jack White's videos and they said that while some of his arguments are invalid or doubtful, the majority are valid.

Folsom: What are their names and what are their credentials? Then we will discuss their agreement.

I don't know the second one's name but the first one is Mr. Brian Mee.

Mr. Mee is a professional photographer and photo lab technician. He has worked in photography for 18 years. He has worked as photographer and photo lab technician for the U.S. Government for the last ten years. Among other things, Mr. Mee has studied and had on-the-job training in negative retouching, print development, shadows, and negative analysis.

In addition, he has had technical courses in color print development and color negative development at the Winona School of Photography, which is affiliated with the Professional Photographers of America School. He has also had courses in automatic printing and in using computer video analyzers at the KODAK School of Photography in Rochester, New York.

The basis of the Warren Commission's claim of a lone assassin rests upon something known as the "Single Bullet Theory." This theory, proposed by now PA Senator Arlen Specter, basically states that a bullet CE 399 entered the President's back, transited his neck, exited the neck, struck Governor John Connally in the back near his right armpit, tore through his chest shattering rib bone, exited his chest, struck his wrist, smashed a tough radius bone, exited his wrist, and imbedded itself in his left thigh. Yet after all of that, the bullet emerged with only 3-4 grains lost from its substance and its grooves intact. The bullet's only deformation is at its base and that can only be viewed from certain angles. Just reading this, the single bullet seems very unlikely. Well, it is. First of all, no trajectory can get Kennedy and Connally properly aligned for the single bullet. Two famous trajectories were done by Dale Myers and Failure Analysis. Both of these run into trouble from the offset in trying to prove the single bullet. First of all, they are based on fanciful speculation and can't conclusively prove anything. Second of all, in both, the Kennedy model is leaning so far forward that his back is off the seat. No photographic evidence supports this contention. Thirdly, in Dale Myers's trajectory, the Connally is figure is rotated a good twenty degrees. Again, no photographic evidence supports this either. Look here at Zapruder frame 224. Connally's shoulders are nearly parallel to the roll bar on the limousine.

Again referring to the Zapruder film, you can see that as early as frames 201-205 Jackie Kennedy has stopped waving and is intently looking at her husband. It is more obvious at frame 223. Seeing this, you know that Kennedy had to have been hit BEFORE 223-24 when the alleged single bullet supposedly struck. William Hartmann, a member of the House Select Committee on Assassination's photographic evidence panel said that the panel found evidence from Willis slide 5 that indicated a shot around frame 190.

Nearly all researchers agree that Kennedy is reacting to a bullet at frame 225. This is impossible if the bullet struck at 223-24. An expert on human wounds, Robert Piziali, stated at a 1992 American Bar Association mock Oswald trial that if Kennedy is reacting at 225, he could have been hit no later that frame 221.

Another major problem is that their is no fabric missing from the slits in JFK's shirt and their is no hole or nick in the knot of JFK's tie.

First of all, let's address the issue of the shirt. David Mantik, after studying the shirt at the National Archives, discovered that their is no fabric missing from JFK's shirt. When bullets tear through clothing, they usually remove some fabric but apparently not in this case. Actually, on closer inspection, those slits look more like knife cuts. The slits were probably caused by the Parkland nurses as the tried to cut off Kennedy's shirt. This is highly likely since the first doctor to see Kennedy, Dr. Charles Carrico stated that he did NOT see the slits in the shirt when he first saw Kennedy. Dr. Carrico also stated that he immediately saw the throat wound which was above the collar.

Secondly, their is no hole in the knot or on the edge of the tie. When Harold Weisberg obtained photos of the President's tie, he made this discovery. JFK's tie would have been positioned right over the slits in the shirt and an exiting bullet should have made some hole through the knot or at least nicked the tie's edge. But we can only see a small nick on the left side of the knot, visibly inward from the knot's edge.

You can also look at Nurse Audrey Bell's statement regarding the bullet fragments in John Connally's wrist. Although Dr. Charles Gregory said the fragments removed from Conally's wrist were tiny and weighed less than a postage stamp, Bell has a very different account. She states that the fragments were identifiable pieces of metal from 2 to 3 millimeters long. Even Dr. Humes, the chief pathologist at the Bethesda autopsy didn't believe that CE 399 was the bullet that struck Connally's wrist. When asked if CE 399 could have been the missile that struck Connally's wrist, this is what he had to say.

Mr. SPECTER. Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally. I move for its admission into evidence at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted. (The article, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 399 for identification, was received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. We have been asked by the FBI that the missile not be handled by anybody because it is undergoing further ballistic tests, and it now appears, may the record show, in a plastic case in a cotton background.

Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?

Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?

Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely. May I expand on those two answers?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes, please do.

Commander HUMES. The X-rays made of the wound in the head of the late President showed fragmentations of the missile. Some fragments we recovered and turned over, as has been previously noted. Also we have X-rays of the fragment of skull which was in the region of our opinion exit wound showing metallic fragments. Also going to Exhibit 392, the report from Parkland Hospital, the following sentence referring to the examination of the wound of the wrist is found: "Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels throughout the wound, and these were, wherever they were identified and could be picked up, picked up and submitted to the pathology department for identification and examination." The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.

If that is not damning enough, Dr. David Mantik concluded after studying the autopsy materials at the National Archives, no path from the back wound to the throat wound could have avoided smashing into the spine. You can read about it in the excellent book Assassination Science. He is not the only one who has come to that conclusion. Dr. John Nichols, a professor of forensic pathology at the University of the Kansas, had this to say.

"Figure 6 is the view through Oswald's telescopic sight at Frame 222, showing the depressed angle of 20.23 degrees prevailing at the first shot as measured in the FBI reenactment. I have both measured and calculated the lateral angle at this frame to be 9.21 degrees. Elementary anatomy indicated that the minimum lateral angle for the bullet to miss the transverse processes and emerge in the midline [of the throat] is 28 degrees; this is obviously impossible from Oswald's alleged firing position."

Also, the HSCA concluded that the back wound was at the same level of the throat wound. They also determined the path of the bullet was slightly UPWARD. How is that even possible!?

I would like to thank Michael T. Griffith for his excellent website on the Kennedy Assassination from which I got most of my information.

Two different photographic experts have watched some of Jack White's videos and they said that while some of his arguments are invalid or doubtful, the majority are valid.

Then you explain to me the violent backward head snap.

One would think that these "master alterationists" would have the President's head movement at the time of the final head shot(s) to move violently towards the front to bolster the single assassin theory. I mean, if they can re-position spectators...enter false shadows...repeat a line of spectators frame after frame without altering the background...alter the foreground only for several frames...(ALL things Jack White belies was done to the film) - then certainly they could have performed more editing to actually indicate bullet trajectory.

Clint Bradford

First of all, I don't think that the alterationists were at all satisifed with their finished product. They probably had to leave the head snap in there because of time constraints. They first had to take out images that were even more unacceptable. This is probably why the Zapruder film was suppressed for so many years.

No, the tramps are not Hunt or Sturgis.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/tramps.htm