Was Oliver Stone's JFK accurate or credible?

[Pat Speer]

Pat Speer: And on and on... In short, there is a long laundry list of CT claims over the years that I reject. You reject many of these as well. As do many other CTs...

1. Pat, there are many people on the WC critics side whose claims I have little use for and think are just off the wall and not really supported by the facts in evidence. Or at least are not worth arguing to any degree. People like Morningstar, and some of the things Weberman has said--like Hunt being the older tramp--these things I just ignore. You will not see me advocating them or even entertaining them. There are others, like say John Hankey, or Russ Baker, that I have vigorously criticized.

But the more important point here is that these people do not represent the mainstream of the critical community. To use just one example, last night on BOR I extended the Wecht symposium of 2003 as a standard of what the research community has achieved. So when I talk about the critics, that is what I hold out as a standard. Baden was pretty much taken over the coals there. Bugliosi failed to show up. Even though he was invited.

So when I talk about the critical community, that is what I mean. It is a line that begins with the likes of Meagher,Salandria, and THompson etc and comes up to today with people like McKnight and Douglass and Aguilar.

2. Concerning your list, I think some of it falls under the same construct as above. For example, I do not entertain for a moment the idea that Greer shot Kennedy, or that Chauncey Holt was one of the Three Tramps. ( In fact I wish that whole issue would just disappear.) To me this is not even worth talking about.

3. But there are other things in your list that are not easily dismissed and for which there is a case to be made for. You could begin with a low threshold of evidence and then build to a high one. And I find it odd that you are not aware of this.

For example you argue that because the Alyea film appears to show the MC, that somehow this dismisses the Mauser claim. But yet with the questions about Frazier's story you say: well the DPD must have ditched the curtain rods and the sack that was the one Wesley saw. Well, everyone knows how staunch an ally of the official story Alyea was and is. And even Duncan has said that in certain films a rifle shown there resembles a Mauser. And then, how does one explain the shell? Was someone just firing a Mauser in Dealey Plaza for kicks?

Further on this point, what is the evidence that Oswald picked up or ever had that MC rifle?

You argue that both the X rays and photos are 100% genuine. But to do so one has to dismiss a large amount of evidence. The eyewitness testimony of dozens of witnesses at both Parkland and Bethesda who recall a blasted out back of the skull of an avulsive nature; the many witnesses who saw protruding cerebellum; David Mantik's OD measurements; the mystery of the 6.5 mm fragment; the differences between the autopsy report and the x rays on the trail of particles from the occipital to the top of the skull; Mantik's demonstration that Kennedy's in vivo x-rays do not in any way show the jarring chiaroscuro effect that is extant on the post mortem x-rays etc etc.

It is one thing to disagree with these claims. It is another to say that they are just not supportable and therefore the likes of John McAdams are correct on the issue. Not so. As Milicent Cranor has said, one rule of law is that when a photographic artifact is produced in court, the person who took part in producing it has to recognize it. In this case, McAdams, or Bugliosi, or Posner would have a very difficult time producing the photos of the brain or the x rays in court and then having say Stringer or Custer or Riebe testify about them. They would be clearly and effectively impeached. Similar to what would happen with CE 399 if Wright or Tomlinson had testified.

In my view, this is why Oswald was killed. And this is why the London trial that Spence and Bugliosi took part in was a joke.

Jim, you think too much like a lawyer, IMO. Your interest is in destroying every piece of evidence used against Oswald. My interest is in trying to figure out what actually happened. As a result there is evidence--such as the ID of the rifle as a Mauser--which can be used to discredit that the rifle found in the TSBD was an M/C rifle--that I am willing to write off as human error when there is photographic evidence to the contrary. Alyea's film was shown on TV within hours of the shooting. It shows an M/C rifle, hours before anyone had linked Oswald to an M/C rifle. I think this is pretty powerful evidence it was the rifle found in the building. You can feel free to disagree.

As far as Mantik, I no longer have faith in much of anything he's written on the x-rays. I've found no evidence his OD readings were performed on the original x-rays. In his books and presentations, he always shows his audience the computer-enhanced x-rays while claiming the x-rays show far too much contrast. This is INCREDIBLY deceptive. These were images enhanced by a computer to increase the contrast, so OF COURSE they show far more contrast than one would expect to find on a normal x-ray.

Evidently, he's promised Fetzer he'll answer all my questions in the near future. Perhaps he has a valid excuse for his misleading behavior. We'll see.

[David G. Healy]

...

As far as Mantik, I no longer have faith in much of anything he's written on the x-rays. I've found no evidence his OD readings were performed on the original x-rays.

...

Are you a MD, Pat Speer? What you are posting is pure speculation, based on your opinion. You want to chop an MD down, best you obtain some chops, what you think or believe is irrelevant... I suspect David Mantik Ph.D, MD would have no problem stepping up on a courtroom stand, called as as an expert witness in related medical matters. Think you could cut the mustard?

Get real Dude!

[Pat Speer]

...

As far as Mantik, I no longer have faith in much of anything he's written on the x-rays. I've found no evidence his OD readings were performed on the original x-rays.

...

Are you a MD, Pat Speer? What you are posting is pure speculation, based on your opinion. You want to chop an MD down, best you obtain some chops, what you think or believe is irrelevant... I suspect David Mantik Ph.D, MD would have no problem stepping up on a courtroom stand, called as as an expert witness in related medical matters. Think you could cut the mustard?

Get real Dude!

You are absolutely correct in that, IF someone were sick and needed someone to advise them on a medical issue, they should probably ask Mantik as opposed to myself.

But we're not discussing medicine. We're discussing history. And history is something anyone with a brain and the willingness to read can comment on.

In this instance, Mantik claims there is too much contrast in Kennedy's x-rays compared to normal x-rays. (As he failed to compare them with x-rays of comparable injuries created on comparable equipment, this claim itself is suspect.) I have found, however, that, in his books and presentations, he always shows the reader Kennedy's computer-enhanced x-rays to make this point.

Well, this is either a gross deception, or a gross error. You see, the computer-enhanced x-rays were enhanced to increase the contrast of the images beyond that of a normal x-ray. Mantik's complaint, then, is the equivalent of photographing a man on stilts, and crying out "My God, this man's a giant!"

So you have a choice. Was Mantik being grossly deceptive, and showing his readers the computer-enhanced x-rays when he should have been showing them the original x-rays (which are not nearly as impressive)? Or did he make a gross error, and not realize that the enhancement of these images increased their contrast?

I don't know what to think. But facts are facts. And Mantik, in his 2009 Lancer appearance, made a lot of misleading statements, and presented a number of misleading slides.

He could be Jonas Salk, and that wouldn't change a thing...

Edited December 8, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

You are absolutely correct in that, IF someone were sick and needed someone to advise them on a medical issue, they should probably ask Mantik as opposed to myself.

But we're not discussing medicine. We're discussing history. And history is something anyone with a brain and the willingness to read can comment on.

In this instance, Mantik claims there is too much contrast in Kennedy's x-rays compared to normal x-rays. (As he failed to compare them with x-rays of comparable injuries created on comparable equipment, this claim itself is suspect.) I have found, however, that, in his books and presentations, he always shows the reader Kennedy's computer-enhanced x-rays to make this point.

Well, this is either a gross deception, or a gross error. You see, the computer-enhanced x-rays were enhanced to increase the contrast of the images beyond that of a normal x-ray. Mantik's complaint, then, is the equivalent of photographing a man on stilts, and crying out "My God, this man's a giant!"

So you have a choice. Was Mantik being grossly deceptive, and showing his readers the computer-enhanced x-rays when he should have been showing them the original x-rays (which are not nearly as impressive)? Or did he make a gross error, and not realize that the enhancement of these images increased their contrast?

I don't know what to think. But facts are facts. And Mantik, in his 2009 Lancer appearance, made a lot of misleading statements, and presented a number of misleading slides.

He could be Jonas Salk, and that wouldn't change a thing...

Here's a wacky idea, Pat.

Why not ask Dr. Mantik what X-rays he used before attempting to cast doubt on his findings? And if you've already asked, maybe you could wait for the answer.

Martin, I've made several overtures to Mantik over the years, but have always been told that he didn't think I've written about anything worth discussing, or some such thing. I even spoke to him in Dallas last year, after his presentation, and tried to make sure he knew I respected him. He seemed kinda nervous talking to me.

I later realized why. His presentation was filled with distortions, half-truths and lies--some of which I have to believe he knew were lies. As I explained to Healy, you have to choose with Mantik--either he's made some gross mistakes, or some gross deceptions...

I go back and forth.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

That's funny Pat.

Because my experience with Mantik is not like that at all.

He didn't know me from Adam the first time I called him. I then asked him if I could come to his place for a private presentation on some of his discoveries, like the x rays being altered and how they were done. He met me at the RItz Carrolton, and we drove to his place of work, and he did the whole thing for me. Whenever I have called him, this is what its been like. I even brought out someone he did not know and he did the same thing.

He has invited me and others, like Chuck Marler to his cottage in the mountains for a weekend of talks on the case. Again, I brought people he never knew, and it was no problem. He even let them sleep over and made breakfast for us the next day.

David has always been like this for anyone who wants to discuss the case. He was even open to talking to Dale Myers about his essay critiquing his phony simulation of the Z film.

And now you are going to say that you just wanted to ask him about which x rays he shows in his presentation and why, and he says "No, I won't address that issue with you Pat."

Do you mind if I address this question to him?

BTW, Pat, this hostility you address toward David, especially after his 2009 talk, is really something. He points out a couple of things he objects to in your analysis and you get all uppity. Yet, you have gone after him--and Aguilar-- more than once, and unfairly, I beleive, and suddenly its you who is up in arms.

To be clear, I have never asked Mantik what x-rays he studied. Until recently, I'd always assumed he'd studied the originals.

I saw the last segment of his 2009 presentation, and had no problem with what I heard. He doesn't agree with me. Fine. I talked to him afterward and asked him if he felt there was any topic regarding the medical evidence on which we could collaborate, and approach a journal for publication. As I recall, he said he'd given up on all the medical journals. I thought it a pity that he seemed so burnt out. And almost forgot about it.

A few months ago, however, I watched his presentation on Fetzer's website. And was horrified. There was a whole lot of deception goin' on...including the fact that he showed his audience the computer-enhanced x-rays whenever he talked about his OD measurements. This led me to go back and read his chapters in Assassination Science, Murder in Dealey Plaza, and The Assassinations. Sure enough, he always published the enhanced x-rays when writing about his OD measurements. This was thoroughly deceptive.

He also misrepresented my own findings a number of times in his presentation, and hid from his audience what at that time was privileged knowledge--that the forensic radiologist consulted by the ARRB, after being shown Mantik's research by Horne, nevertheless foreshadowed my layman's analysis, and proposed that the "white patch" on the lateral x-ray indicates overlying bone, and that this bone is almost certainly the red wing of bone visible in the right lateral autopsy photo.

This, of course, raises a related question. Why did Horne hang onto this report for so long? To protect Mantik? Who knows? All I know for sure is that Mantik went to Dallas, and blew a bunch of smoke...

Edited December 9, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Frankie Vegas]

I'm sorry if someone has already said this, but I don't think it matters if 'JFK' the movie was credible or not. Accurate or not, it was the catalyst for the ARRB. And thats a good thing, that and it brought the assassination into the publics mind. For That alone it was well worth it.

[David Von Pein]

I'm sorry if someone has already said this, but I don't think it matters if 'JFK' the movie was credible or not. Accurate or not, it was the catalyst for the ARRB. And that's a good thing, that and it brought the assassination into the public's mind. For that alone it was well worth it.

Yeah, sure, Frankie. And to hell with the fact that it was nothing but a pack of lies and misrepresentations of the evidence that a lot of young viewers now perceive to be the rock-solid truth, huh?

That one single movie has done more to promote the false JFK conspiracy than anything else since 1963. If that's supposedly a good thing, I'd hate to encounter the bad.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/brainwashing-of-america.html

Edited December 9, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Jimbo D.,

You don't need to know anything about Garrison's "investigation" to know that Stone's movie is a pack of lies from start to finish. After all, Stone has DiEugenio Disease -- i.e., he thinks Oswald was totally innocent of shooting anybody.

Edited December 9, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Just stating a fact, Jimbo. But you enjoy promoting a fraud named Garrison. God only knows why.

Garrison began with a totally false premise of Oswald's "patsy" status and his complete innocence, which is total crap and every reasonable person knows it -- even 83% of these 1,031 people, who also agree with me that your hero, Earling Garrison, was full of BS when he insisted Oswald didn't shoot a soul on 11/22:

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy

assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to

Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the

assassination at all?".....

ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%

ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%

OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%

NO OPINION ------------- 10%

http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy

[David Von Pein]

Listen to a fraud named Garrison at work:

http://Garrison-Carson.blogspot.com

Edited December 9, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

FOr those who wish to see Mantik 2009 unfiltered, here it is:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/JFK_Skull_X-rays.htm

Thanks for the link, Jim.

Now I understand why Pat's got his knickers in a twist over Mantik. I mean how dare Dr. Mantik, a genuine medical expert, think to question Pat "I'm 70% LN" Speer's authoritative, paradigm-shifting, case-cracking (but completely untrained) medical analysis?

The nerve of some people...

Geez, Martin. Brilliant analysis. "Pat's mad because mean ole Mantik criticized his work." That's nonsense. I was there at the end of the program when Mantik told Randy Owen he didn't find my work credible, or words to that effect... and thought little of it. I mean, I fully well understand that there's an old guard of CTs just as there's an old guard of LNs, and that neither of them will ever embrace the work of a relative newbie of any stripe who comes along and forces them to question their beliefs.

What I didn't expect was that, upon finally watching Mantik's full presentation, I would spot so much deception--some probably accidental, but much undoubtedly suspicious. I mean, he MOVED the location of the debris on the Harper fragment from his presentation of HIS interpretation of its orientation to his presentation of Angel's interpretation of its orientation, and then used this to undermine Angel's interpretation.

That's either a serious deception or a serious mistake. And yet, when I pointed this out on this forum, Mantik, rather than acknowledging his mistake, told Fetzer he was preparing a response to my claims, or some such thing. He could easily have said "yes, I screwed up there," but I stand by the rest of my analysis," or some such thing. That he did not makes me think he's stalling, and whipping up smoke...

P.S. by moving the debris on the Harper fragment, MANTIK hid from the mostly CTs in attendance at the conference that there was clear-cut evidence for a bullet impact EXACTLY where most of them think a bullet impacted--on the front half of Kennedy's head. Now, don't you think this is something they should have been told? I do.

So, you see, it's not 70% LN Pat vs. 100% Purebred Mantik, as you prefer to believe. It's Pat vs. deceptive behavior, no matter its religious orientation.

As far as your propping up of Mantik as a "genuine medical expert"...please. Radiation oncologists are no more experts in forensic pathology and wound ballistics than orthodontists and podiatrists...

Edited December 9, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Pat:

How could Horne "hide" anything from anyone that was ARRB material?

Everyone knows that all this stuff was sent to NARA 2 after the ARRB closed shop.

Is this what you are implying?

THat somehow Horne absconded with an outside report commissioned by the ARRB, and thus it was not included with their materials at Maryland?

Did you check on that with the archivist?

Shouldn't you have?

What? No. I'm not accusing Horne of stealing anything. It's just mighty curious to me that, with the release of Horne's book, suddenly three reports emerge and suddenly it becomes clear that, unbeknownst to most everyone, the ARRB consulted with three forensic consultants. I wondered why it was. After reading the reports however, I noticed that the forensic radiologist Horne interviewed dismissed Mantik's research. The thought occurs that this had something to do with it. I mean, if the consultants had agreed with Mantik, don't you think he'd have told us so years ago?

From patspeer.com, chapter 18b:

Before I began this project I knew virtually nothing about x-rays. After reading about some of the controversies involving the Kennedy assassination, I eventually decided it was time to get my feet wet and learn a thing or two. The first thing I read was an online article by Joe Durnavich entitled “Making Sense of the Head X-rays,” available on Professor John McAdams’ JFK site. I was extremely impressed with this article, particularly its identification of the "wing" of bone on the lateral x-ray. When I tried to use Durnavich’s location on a comparison between the x-ray and right lateral autopsy photo for this presentation, however, I learned something unexpected. Durnavich, and just about everybody else who’s written on the x-rays, was wrong.

When one matches the wing of bone in size and angle in Durnavich’s analysis with the wing of bone on the right lateral autopsy photo one is at first amazed. Holy smokes, that’s the bone alright. When one aligns the wings in the x-ray and photo vertically, however, it becomes apparent that the x-ray extends way behind the skull in the photo. Even though the photo is at a slight angle, when one turns the face in the photo to be in perfect profile in one’s mind one can see the back of the head does not align with the x-ray. A closer look and one realizes, moreover, that the wing on Durnavich’s analysis is in front and above the spongy-looking bone on the x-ray; this is the mastoid process and it signifies the location of the ear. The photo, on the other hand, demonstrates that the wing is above and behind the ear.

When one uses an inverted view of the left lateral photo and matches it with the un-enhanced x-ray this becomes even more apparent. When one finds the right tilt for the skull, and lines up the skull dimensions, and depicts the position of the wing on Durnavich’s analysis on Kennedy’s profile, one can see that Durnavich’s “wing” begins almost on Kennedy’s face, when the actual wing is at last an inch and a half back in his hair. When one looks at the un-enhanced x-ray, moreover, one finds that Durnavich’s wing is located over a considerable amount of black space. When one considers that the wing of bone overlay intact skull, and that this means the x-rays penetrating it would have to penetrate three skull walls instead of two, then it’s really hard to understand how the wing could show up as black.

When one looks on the x-ray where the wing is on the photo, however, it all becomes clear. For the location of the wing on the autopsy photo--draping down behind the ear almost to the table—is the very location of the mysterious white area we discussed on the optical density slide. The “wing” is the white area!! This makes perfect sense as it represents three walls as opposed to two. As Custer and Reed did not allow for this extra level of density in the skull—it’s doubtful they even discussed it since the doctors had not yet examined the body—they would have set the levels as if they were x-raying a skull with only two walls. This unexpected overlay of bone distorted the relative density of the entire x-ray, especially when compared to the A-P x-ray (which is why the “slice” is so much whiter in the A-P.)

Ironically, Dr. David Mantik, who was to conclude that the white area “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,” was on the verge of figuring out this mystery before his suspicious nature got the best of him. In Assassination Science, he discussed the white area in less paranoid terms. He said: “On close inspection, this remarkable white area is distinctly wider on one lateral view than the other. This implies that it was located closer to the right side of the skull.” He was so close and yet so far. Apparently, he never realized that the range of optical density measurements he'd derived from normal skull x-rays bore little relation to the range one would expect on an x-ray of a badly damaged skull with over-lapping skull fragments.

Until it was too late, and he was wed to his mistake... On November 21, 2009, I saw the concluding question and answer session of Mantik's presentation at the JFK Lancer conference in Dallas. As I struggled toward the back of the room, I was stunned to see half the audience turn to look at me. As I sat down and looked up, moreover, I saw that Mantik, too, was looking at me. As the questioner in the front row resumed his question, however, I realized why. Someone had asked Mantik if the overlapping bone and missing bone on the x-ray could significantly alter the density range. He called it "Speer's theory." Mantik, however, refused to acknowledge that this would have much of an effect, and summarily dismissed "Speer's theory" with the claim I was a layman and didn't know what I was talking about, and that my theory was so unscientific that he felt testing the density range of a skull damaged as badly as Kennedy's to be a total waste of time.

But it wasn't the theory of a layman. Oh no, far from it. On 10-21-97, Edward Reed, one of the two x-ray techs to assist in the autopsy of President Kennedy, testified before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). When examining the lateral x-rays, Reed noted "The dark spot that I am pointing to right now is a less dense area. There's hardly any bone there. And there's only one side intact. Whereas here, posteriorly, where I'm pointing to now is--the white area--is where the bones overlap."

Reed's words presented a serious challenge to Mantik's theory. Not only did they pre-date my development of "Speer's" theory by seven years or so, but they show that one of Mantik's biggest supporters, Doug Horne of the ARRB, knew of my argument against Mantik's theory before I'd even stumbled on it.

So how does Horne deal with this in his book? In Volume 2 of his five volume opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Horne devotes 33 pages to a discussion of Reed's testimony. Curiously, however, while he skips right over Reed's common sense explanation for the "dark spot" and "white area" of the x-rays, he finds the space to point out repeatedly that Reed was just an x-ray tech, and not qualified to interpret any x-ray, let alone the x-ray of a gun shot victim. This overlooks that Mantik, to whom Horne frequently defers, is but a radiation oncologist, and has almost certainly never worked with x-rays like the ones made of Kennedy, let alone interpret them.

It's actually worse than that. In September, 2010, I finally took a look at the Power Point presentation Mantik delivered in Dallas the year before. On one of his slides, The White Patch: Evidence of Its Absurdity, it is noted that "No such white patch was seen in 19 cases of death due to gunshot wounds to the head, in x-rays collected by Douglas DeSalles, MD from forensic files." If I'm reading this correctly, it means that the OD measurements Mantik boasts prove the lateral X-ray a forgery were established not through his own intensive study of hundreds of x-rays, as one might guess, but through the study of but 19 x-rays collected by Dr. Doug DeSalles, a fellow researcher. Well, were these x-rays taken with the same kind of portable x-ray machine used on Kennedy? Did they exclusively depict the wounds of victims of high-velocity gunshot wounds to the head? Did they exclusively depict skulls with missing fragments, set side by side with overlapping skull? I'd bet the farm they did not.

And you should, too. On another one of his slides entitled The White Patch: Impossible to Explain via Overlapping Bone, Mantik further revealed his lack of credibility. He claimed "that the Dark Area contains two layers of skull bone, one from each side, yet this area is astonishingly dark. One more layer of bone will not turn the Dark Area into a white patch." Yikes. How could he have missed that Reed and myself had argued that the White Patch was three layers of bone, and that the Dark Area was one layer of bone, and that the White Patch had therefore represented 300% as much bone, and instead claim that we believe the White Patch was three layers, and the Dark Area two, and that the White Patch had therefore represented but 50% more bone?

While I'd prefer to believe Mantik was above blowing smoke, I must admit that if I'd discovered a single-assassin theorist misrepresenting my theory in such a manner I'd have stood up from the crowd and corrected him. Hmmm... Maybe this explains Mantik's nervousness when I approached him after his presentation. Hmmm...

On October 12, 2010, however, Dr. Mantik responded to some of my claims, and gave me reason to believe that he just isn't in touch with the facts. In a post on the Education Forum, Dr. James Fetzer related some comments from Mantik. One of these comments dealt with Mantik's "white patch," and my assertion it did not overlay the wound location proposed by most conspiracy theorists. To this, Dr. Mantik responded: "The original lateral X-ray probably showed missing BRAIN in the current area of the WHITE PATCH. It was the missing brain, not missing skull, that likely led to the WHITE PATCH. This is one of my older points: on the lateral X-ray, it is missing brain that typically produces obvious dark areas, not missing bone!" Well, heck, there it is. Mantik thinks the dark areas on the x-ray reflect missing brain. He fails to appreciate the obvious--that the un-enhanced x-rays show skull fractures on the intact skull that have nothing to do with missing brain and everything to do with missing skull. He simply fails to understand that, should one of the skull fragments on the back of the head be absent, the dark lines designating the fractures on the skull would be expanded to fill the gap, and become a "dark area." I mean, this isn't exactly rocket science. If losing a layer of bone would not make the skull appear much darker on an x-ray, as Mantik claims, then the skull fractures we all see on the x-rays are some sort of illusion.

But no matter. We'll discuss Mantik in more detail later. We were discussing the deleterious effect of Mantik's mistakes on Horne. Such an impact becomes clear when one reads Horne's book's appendices. Yep, once again, the reports Horne wrote on his 1996 meetings with the ARRB's three consultants on the medical evidence undermine his subsequent conclusions, and call into question his ability to interpret evidence without pushing an agenda. Forensic Anthropologist Douglas Ubelaker, upon viewing the lateral x-rays, noted "overlapping bone fragments" in the "temporal-parietal region of the lateral x-rays." This is almost certainly a reference to the white area noted by Mantik. More specifically, however, Forensic Radiologist John J. Fitzpatrick, a man with far more expertise on these matters than Mantik, confirmed that "overlapping bone is clearly present in the lateral skull x-rays" and that "the red flap above the ear" in the autopsy photos "equates with the overlapping bone in the lateral skull x-rays." (Although Mantik summarized the findings of Ubelaker and Fitzpatrick in his presentation, he failed to report that they'd offered strong support for what he preferred to call "Speer's theory." This can hardly be considered an oversight. Hmmm...)

And from there it only gets worse... Near its conclusion, Horne's report on Fitzpatrick admits: "after reviewing some brief summaries of the independent research efforts of...Dr. Mantik...He did not find the work...to be persuasive, and did not concur with (his) findings..." (While Mantik did report Fitzpatrick's lack of approval, he presented it to his audience as a mystery, and failed to discuss the reasonable probability that Fitzpatrick did not concur with his findings at least in part because he believes Mantik's White Patch to be overlapping bone..."Speer's theory.")

In any event, I'm not the first to make the observation that the wing of bone or red flap on the autopsy photos represents the white area on the x-rays. Fitzpatrick had done so in 1996 and Edward Reed had done so in 1997. When one goes back to 1978, in fact, one can see that HSCA radiology consultant William Seaman, working with the un-enhanced x-rays, had also noted "overlapping skull pieces," much as the ARRB's anthropology consultant Ubelaker. That only makes sense. But what does not make sense is Doug Horne's knowing in 1996 that there was a common sense explanation for the white area on the lateral x-ray, and then, apparently, never raising this issue with Mantik so that Mantik could perform more tests, this time using skulls with overlapping fragments of bone.

Oh, wait, it does make sense. Perfect sense. Sometimes even the best of us are so stuck on our theories -- or so enamored with our favorite expert or witness -- that we fail to note the obvious.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Frankie Vegas]

I'm sorry if someone has already said this, but I don't think it matters if 'JFK' the movie was credible or not. Accurate or not, it was the catalyst for the ARRB. And that's a good thing, that and it brought the assassination into the public's mind. For that alone it was well worth it.

Yeah, sure, Frankie. And to hell with the fact that it was nothing but a pack of lies and misrepresentations of the evidence that a lot of young viewers now perceive to be the rock-solid truth, huh?

That one single movie has done more to promote the false JFK conspiracy than anything else since 1963. If that's supposedly a good thing, I'd hate to encounter the bad.

http://jfk-archives....of-america.html

Aren't you glad that the ARRB got so many files released?

[David Von Pein]

Aren't you glad that the ARRB got so many files released?

Yeah, that's nice. But where has it taken "conspiracy" researchers?

Jim DiEugenio wants to pretend that the ARRB released documents that totally shatter to bits the lone-assassin conclusion reached by the Warren Commission.

But WHICH documents did this shattering?

IOW, WHERE is the "smoking gun" amongst the stuff released by the Assassination Records Review Board?

-------------------------------

"Three things are very clear: First, after an unprecedented and historic four-year scavenger hunt by the ARRB for all documents “reasonably related” to the assassination, no smoking gun or even a smoldering ember of conspiracy was found. The reason is that no such smoking gun or ember ever existed. Second, if it did exist, it would never have been left in any file for discovery. And finally, assassination researchers and conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied, not even when the cows come home." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 149 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

-------------------------------

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/anna-nelson-of-arrb-october-1998.html

Edited December 10, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Michael Hogan]

Jim DiEugenio wants to pretend that the ARRB released documents that totally shatter to bits the lone-assassin conclusion reached by the Warren Commission.

News flash for David: The lone assassin myth reached by the Warren Commission was shattered long before the ARRB was formed.

Those documents were just icing on the cake.