Search the Community

There are numerous threads on medical evidence and autopsy data on this forum, and as I do not know which thread to choose, I decided to start a new one. The lack of a wound on the back of President's head in official autopsy photographs is in stark contrast with numerous testimonies by Parkland medical staff who were consistent in observing such wound while President was attended to in trauma room 1. While some autopsy photographs have the back of the head crudely retouched, there may be one or couple pictures which could still contain original information pertaining to the wound in the back of President's head. The picture below appers to be just such picture (downloaded from jfkassassinationgallery.org) (left): I have added a bit of light to the dark tones which resulted in the image in the right panel. The logic of the problem suggests that in case of intentional alteration of this autopsy picture to hide the occipital-parietal wound, a texture in form of human hair would be added to mask the dark space represented by the wound. If comparatively light-coloured lines have been added to otherwise very dark area (hollow space of the wound), we should see a different distribution of very dark tones over the area of the wound compared to the area of intact hair. Basically, the hair fibres over the tampered area would not have have the correct vertical depth and would end abruptly in the dark void of the head wound. I have uploaded this image to ImageJ program which allows visualisation of the brightness of an image as a depth, creating a pseudo 3D image in which light tones are on the surface of the 3D structure and the dark tones in the depth of the 3D structure. Here are the black-and-white and coloured representations of the image above (the enhanced one): As brightness adds another dimension to the image, the photograph becomes a 3D object and can therefore be tilted, rotated etc. In the coloured image, please note that the very dark area next to the surgeon's thumb is represented as being located deep and it is painted with dark blue or black colour. This area of the head is likely devoid of any tissues, a cavity. It is possible to view the histogram of brightness across the height of the image which allows to view the configurations of the very dark pixels across the picture; those would likely be in areas devoid of any tissues. In the histogram image above, the top of the patch would be the most superficial layer of comparatively bright pixels, and the bottom of the patch would represent the distribution of comparatively dark pixels. The photograph is viewed as if from the side with the left corner being at President's neck and the right corner ending at the surgeon's elbow. Please note the very dark area corresponding to the region of the head next to the surgeon's finger. However, the occipital area of the head down to a line at approximately the level of external occipital protuberance is also very dark. The picture above shows the map of dark pixels in the right parieto-occipital region of the head. Basically, we see the bottom of 3D brightness-coded photograph. Please note that hair above the neck shows intermediate level of blue-violet colour (skin), while the region above of what may be the hollow area has clearly a darker "bottom" and connects to the dark area next to the surgeon's finger. In my humble opinion, the black-coded region in the photograph is related to a void owing to the missing tissue in the occipital-parietal region of the head. Interestingly, there appears to be a very bright spot interrupting the lower contour of the dark area. Of course, this spot would be bright when viewed from the top and it would be hard to pinpoint it as the neighboring spots would also be of comparatively light colour. However, unlike other light-coloured lines on the bright surface of the photograph, this spot has no dark bottom, meaning it is bright over the entire depth. One explanation would be that it is a metal object lodged in the lower aspect of the head wound. The "bottom" of the brightness coded pseudo-3D picture was overlaid onto the original photograph. This visualisation may actually point to the President's occipital-parietal wound. Notably, the texture of normal hair in the lower back region of the head differs from the texture of hair in the area overlaying the purported hollow space. The hair fibres in the lower part of the scalp ("normal hair texture") create vertical columns with a continuous gradation of brightness, and have a shape of Eiffel tower. In contrast, the columns of hair in the area overlaing the void have only a comparatively bright top and fall sharply to the very dark levels with almost no gradations of brightness (a skyscraper). This would be consistent with painting comparatively bright patches over a very dark region of the photograph overlaying a cavity. Coming back to the bright object which does not appear to have any bottom in the brightness-coded autopsy picture, the figure below depicts the location of the bright spot on the overlay of original photograph and the colour-coded "bottom" (dark tones), and the flipped X-ray image of President's head. While the head picture and the X-ray do not have identical orientations, it is still possible to at least evaluate the approximate distance of the bright 6.5 mm spot in the X-ray (which we know is only about 2.5 wide, as per Dr Mantik's observation) from the midline and to compare it with the bright looking spot not having a dark bottom in the autopsy picture.

I just published an article by my dear friend, Milicent Cranor, on my main website. As many of you know, Pat Speer has been critical of the work done by Dr's Mantik and Chesser. Please read this article and come to your own conclusions. ​PatSpeer.com: Fact Check

I have just published a new article by Cervantes [pen name] on my main website. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer: A Sorrowful Knight Errant in the Land of "Education"

Below: See the medical poll followed by the current results so far. If you would like to voice your opinion go to this link and scroll to the bottom of the article. The poll is on the left side after the "Conclusions" section.

A Response to Recent Comments on the JFK Education Forum 12-12-2015 David W. Mantik 1. Did I view the (purported) original JFK X-rays at NARA? Answer: I have often affirmed that I did; my optical density data derive from those images. Here are supporting clues (that I saw NARA’S “originals”). A. The so-called “burn” marks were highly wrinkled (i.e., three dimensional)—quite different from how they would appear in a copy film (i.e., they would be two dimensional). B. The pencil line (presumably placed by Ebersole) was evident on only one side of the right lateral X-ray (that’s the image in the public record). That is proof that that film had not been copied since the pencil line was placed. C. The 6.5 mm fake object exhibits the phantom image effect, i.e., smaller objects are visible inside it. If this film were to be copied, such a double exposure effect would not occur. Dr. Michael Chesser notes that, on the HSCA X-rays (that he saw, but I did not), the 6.5 mm image is uniformly bright (transparent). That is the expected outcome for a copied image. It is also very important to note that Michael Chesser also observed at least two metal fragments inside the 6.5 mm object—which further confirms that we saw the same X-rays. D. The edges of the skull films (in many places) showed the typical deterioration that inevitably occurs over time, i.e., the emulsion had either already disappeared, or was actively falling off. E. Chesser’s ODs are consistent with mine; this is a very unlikely outcome if we had examined different films. Chesser has also just stated: “I didn’t say that David had not seen the original X-rays….” He has also just sent this comment to me: “I'm certain that you viewed the originals, and you can quote me.” F. For further confirmation that I viewed the “original” X-rays, just ask these on-site witnesses: Gary Aguilar, MD, Steve Majewski, PhD, David Poynter (NARA), Martha Murphy (NARA), or Matthew Fulghum (NARA). Furthermore, Aguilar actually assisted in taking some OD data. 2. Did JFK have a large occipital defect when he arrived at Bethesda? Answer: Yes! A. According to Michael Kurtz, this was affirmed by eight physicians at Bethesda. Also see Doug Horne’s list. B. The Bethesda paraprofessionals concurred with such a large posterior hole. That includes James Jenkins—see images of Jenkins (actually demonstrating this hole) in Law’s book. At my request (and in the presence of William Law and me), on November 22, 2015 at the Adolphus Hotel, Jenkins circled the site of this posterior hole on the head of Michael Chesser. This was videotaped. C. Boswell verbally agreed that the defect extended into the occiput. D. Finck’s report to his superior (Blumberg) cites an occipital defect. E. Even Humes, in the autopsy report, states that the defect went into the occiput. F. Ebersole, even after examining the autopsy X-rays, told me personally that JFK had a large occipital defect. G. I have listed 15 clues that support such a hole (where the Harper fragment fits). H. One clue that is extremely compelling is the presence of fat pads in the corner of F8 (the mystery photo--officially autopsy b&w #17-18 or color #44-45). Besides the ARRB consultant (forensic pathologist, Robert H. Kirschner), both Dr. Michael Chesser and I have seen these fat pads (from the abdominal incision and reflection) in stereo viewing of NARA’s color images. We have also seen other pertinent anterior anatomic features that are consistent with this interpretation of fat pads. All of these features require that F8 be mostly a posterior view, in which case the large right-sided skull defect is obvious in the photograph. 3. Did the skull defect include the parietal area? Answer: Yes, most likely it did. At the very least, the parietal skull had experienced trauma. A. Horne and I have proposed an oblique shot entering near the right ear. That would fit well with parietal trauma. B. James Jenkins saw evidence of a bullet entry near this site. C. Nearby witnesses (the Newmans and Zapruder) report seeing trauma (possibly even blood or tissue) near the right ear. D. Actually, there is a long list of such witnesses—from November 22, 1963. E. Such an oblique (frontal) shot fits well with ejection of the Harper Fragment. Moreover, no other shot explains the occipital hole that was widely reported at Parkland. 4. Why didn’t more witnesses see the parietal trauma? Answer: Quite possibly the scalp had fallen back into a nearly normal position, so that this area was (mostly) covered. 5. On the lateral skull X-rays, does the White Patch cover the Harper Fragment defect at the back of the skull? Answer: No! This is discussed (and illustrated) in detail in my e-book. I have never said otherwise. A. Chesser agrees: “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.” NOTE: Supporting sources for most of these statements can be found in my e-book: John F. Kennedy's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis and a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment For my critique of Pat Speer, see: David Mantik vs. Pat Speer on the JFK Autopsy X-rays

David Mantik's new abstract was just published in the peer reviewed medical journal, Medical Research Archives. The essay can be found and downloaded (or read online) for free at this link: The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest "Metallic Fragment" Highly recommended reading.

I have just published the presentation of Neurologist, Dr. Michael Chesser, on the main website, which he delivered at the JFK Lancer Conference in Dallas this year. This is a MUST read, IMO. We spoke on the telephone today and Dr. Chesser has agreed to join my forum and will answer any questions that you may have for him there. A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs From the intro: [Editorial note: The following presentation was prepared and delivered by neurologist, Dr. Michael Chesser, at the 2015 JFK Lancer Conference in Dallas, Texas. His work also supports the findings of Dr. David Mantik. According to Dr. Chesser: “I viewed the original autopsy skull X-rays at the archives this year [2015] and I confirmed [Mantik’s] optical density readings of the lateral skull film, which support his conclusion that there was manipulation. Hopefully there will come a time when better copies of the autopsy x-rays and photographs will be made available for review by a wider audience and the evidence will speak for itself. I applaud Dr. David Mantik for his courage in reporting the truth.” While there are many debatable items of evidence in this case, many of which cannot be proved one way or another, the medical evidence has now been subjected to scrutiny by several eminently qualified medical experts and a physicist. Dr. Michael Chesser demonstrates, among other things, that these rather disturbing findings are replicable. We thank him for his good work and dedication to the truth.– Greg Burnham]

I found a very important 20+ year old paper. The PDF pages were in sorry shape, with large dark spots, etc. so I decided to restore it, deskew it, added OCR. You can retrieve here, in all its newfound glory: http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/The-Head-Wounds-of-John-Kennedy.pdf There is a related web page, in at least two sites: https://home.comcast.net/~ceoverfield/riley.html https://home.comcast.net/~ceoverfield/riley2.html http://jfkhistory.com/riehl/What_Struck_John.html That was the easy part. I have been trying to contact the author, Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D. There is an address, which I located in Google Maps. Tried to call. Nothing. Found the death notice of one of the paper co-authors. I am assuming that the author is no longer with us. My objective is to take the 2 well known autopsy X-rays and project them, as accurately as possible on a 3D model. Where can I find copies of the x-rays, in the best qualify possible? TIA -RFH

Most JFK Medical Evidence Would Not Be Admissible at Trial by Douglas P. Horne AssassinationOfJFK.net presents an essay written by Doug Horne, the author of “Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.” In this essay Horne examines how much of the medical evidence he feels would have been admitted into a court of law, his reasons why, and he describes the shady “sleight of hand” activities that were going on the night President Kennedy’s body was returned to Washington.

Exclusive from AssassinationOfJFK.net ----------------------------------------------------------------- JFK Skull X-Rays: Evidence of Forgery by David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. This power point presentation, details the reasons the autopsy x-rays of President Kennedy’s skull, the x-rays that are now a part of public record, are a forgery. This presentation was put together by Dr. David Mantik, a Founding Member of the AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum. Dr. Mantik has also added a correction to his initial presentation. It is available below the PowerPoint, in the form of a PDF document that you can either view here online or download for your convenience. After looking through his presentation, you are invited to leave a comment here or on the AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum.

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired. Check out David Mantik's review here.

While serving as chief analyst of military records at the Assassination Records Review Board in the nineties, Douglas Horne examined serious anomalies in the medical evidence in the JFK case. In a new 76-minute feature JFK - The Medical Cover Up, Horne draws on his book "Inside the ARRB" to present a comprehensive overview of the missing, altered and fraudulent evidence that indicates a cover-up by multiple agencies of the government. Their mission - to hide the true nature of JFK's wounds and purge all trace of a conspiracy. https://vimeo.com/ondemand/jfk