Greg Burnham Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I spent another afternoon with David last week in Carlsbad. We discussed his latest presentation in Dallas. I have summarized it in this article on the main site. Not only has another doctor, Michael Chesser, MD., confirmed David's optical densitometry measurements from the post-mortem autopsy X-rays in the National Archives, but he went a step further. Dr. Chesser also took optical densitometry measurements from JFK's pre-mortem X-rays at the JFK Library in Boston. Do you think they match? Find out here: JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Many thanks, Greg. I again ask all those here, who had the power to cause such fraud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Many thanks, Greg. I again ask all those here, who had the power to cause such fraud? LBJ, who managed the cover-up, with a criminal organization (CIA) and the corrupt FBI (Federal Bogus Investigations) at his disposal. The CIA and FBI both had the power to conduct such fraud with or without LBJ's involvement, but it probably helped to have LBJ order the Secret Service to cooperate with whoever wanted to play with the autopsy materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Ron, I believe events occurred this way: o LBJ was overjoyed to become president. o LBJ knew he was given a present. o LBJ knew that accepting the present meant not attacking the giver of the present. o The CIA was snookered. o The FBI was snookered. o The Secret Service operated to protect the Secret Service. o The Navy knew to play ball. We have bureaucracies. The central goal of any bureaucracy is to protect and preserve the bureaucracy. Think about it, Ron. The President is killed. In broad daylight. What is the CIA's immediate goal? To establish it didn't cause the killing. Even though it dealt or might have dealt with suspicious individuals. My point is, who had the power not only to order the killing of JFK, but also to order the cover-up of the killing? The answer is, someone who had power in 1963-64. The answer is someone who has power in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted December 9, 2015 Author Share Posted December 9, 2015 My point is, who had the power not only to order the killing of JFK, but also to order the cover-up of the killing? The answer is, someone who had power in 1963-64. The answer is someone who has power in 2015. The nameless, faceless, and stateless Sponsors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) My point is, who had the power not only to order the killing of JFK, but also to order the cover-up of the killing? The answer is, someone who had power in 1963-64. The answer is someone who has power in 2015. The nameless, faceless, and stateless Sponsors. The nameless, faceless, and stateless Sponsors who didn't like him and wanted him dead, Greg. LOL --Tommy Edited December 10, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 My point is, who had the power not only to order the killing of JFK, but also to order the cover-up of the killing? The answer is, someone who had power in 1963-64. The answer is someone who has power in 2015. yes The nameless, faceless, and stateless Sponsors. Stateless, yes. Nameless and faceless? Never marry a Pet Theory...Who were the most powerful stateless entities in 1963? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) Greg: Thanks a lot for this. Its really neat that Dave got another doctor to go along with his compelling evidence on the x rays. I have always thought that if we ever got a TV special on the ARRB, Mantik's stuff on this subject would be mandatory to be included. Because it is pretty easy to understand yet its scientifically based. Plus its visual. BTW, Lancer sounded pretty good. Were you there? Can you give us a rundown? Edited December 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) BTW, if you don' t mind a bit of editorializing, I think I have earned the right. One thing that really bothers me of late about this so called critical community is this: Its not very critical. Greg posts on here one piece of very interesting evidence, and three people then jump on to say that now we know who killed Kennedy! I mean, please. That is ridiculous. The argument about who killed Kennedy cannot be made like that i.e. on one piece of evidence in a post on a forum. Its kind of silly if you ask me. But ever since the nineties, the critical community has been plagued with this unsophisticated trait. If i had to put a marker on it, it began when that blowhard Barr McClellan brought out his LBJ did it book for the 40th. And then the two other blowhards, Nigel Turner and Alex Jones, featured him on their shows. Well, I was one of the people who actually read that book, and took notes on it. It is really one of the worst books written on the case. The one piece of evidence the book had, the so called Wallace print, has now been called into question. To me, the only way this case will be solved is INDUCTIVELY! Not deductively--that is having your pet theory and then jumping onto something to gird it. That is Lamar Waldron/ Barr McClellan disease. As I noted above, Mantik's work is really interesting and its good that he got someone to go along with him. But to say it solves the case--and that we know who killed JFK? C'mon. We will never be taken seriously it we continue to do this stuff. We will (rightly) be perceived as a bunch of jejune axe grinders Edited December 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) C'mon. We will never be taken seriously it we continue to do this stuff. We will (rightly) be perceived as a bunch of jejune axe grinders. Oh, brother. As if your 20+ theories of untenable junk deserve to be "taken seriously". Hilarious.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-114.html Re: the silly "White Blob Added To The X-Ray" theory.... "Mantik is the fellow who found a "suspicious" white blob over the back of Kennedy's skull in the lateral X-rays. He sees this as evidence of conspiracy, but he's never dealt with the fact that the HSCA published these x-rays in the 70s and there was no such blob then. The x-rays showed the back of Kennedy's head intact. Why would the Evil Minions tamper with evidence that SHOWED WHAT THEY WANTED IT TO SHOW?" -- John McAdams; December 22, 1999 Edited December 10, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) Its not a point of whether or not the back of the head is intact. Its whether or not the x rays have been altered by being deliberately over exposed. And you can see the white blob very clearly on slides. Unless you are going to say Mantik altered them himself. Keep on quoting the discredited John McAdams. Didn't he have some professional problems at Marquette? Edited December 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) More common sense from McAdams.... MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH SAID: You [John McAdams] are forgetting that Dr. Mantik observed and measured--yes, measured--the unnatural white patch ON THE X-RAYS AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES. You're also forgetting that the condition of the posterior of the skull in the AP x-ray was largely ignored by the HSCA's forensic pathology panel. JOHN McADAMS SAID: No, it was not. They quite clearly stated that the entry defect was in the cowlick area, and that this entry point was on the margin of the large wound. You might look at [what] the x-ray experts of the HSCA said about this: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/hsca/hsca.htm The Ramsey Clark Panel saw the x-rays. They found the back of the head intact. The HSCA FPP saw the x-rays, and they found the back of the head intact. So in the late 60s and then in the late 70s the x-rays showed "what the plotters wanted to show." Why did they mess with them between the late 1970s and the time that Mantik got ahold of them? https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/YahseK20pTs/yeU6bKXFFRYJ Edited December 10, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Oh no, another thread hijacking by DVP. If you have nothing to say about what was presented at Lancer by Mantik and his colleague, then why say anything. But the worst is you are recycling a source that, to say the least, is simply not credible today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) [it's] not a point of whether or not the back of the head is intact. Huh? It's not??! You must be joking. OF COURSE that's what it's all about, Jim. That's the ENTIRE genesis for the "White Blob" X-ray debate! Otherwise, this whole topic about the X-rays is a complete non-issue. Dr. Mantik thinks that President Kennedy had a huge hole in the back of his head and that's why somebody (allegedly) tampered with the X-rays. Why ELSE would the forever-unidentified and unknown "they" be monkeying around with the X-rays? Just for kicks? Edited December 10, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) You know, I always said you had problems with the English language. And this is one reason I do not deal with you anymore. The point of the issue is not whether the x rays show an intact skull. What Mantik is arguing is that the rear of the skull appears to be overexposed in the posterior which is where a white patch appears. And it obstructs that so you cannot decipher what is back there. As per your Marquette professor, here, play around with these: http://www.ctka.net/2013/mcadams.html https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/18/right-wing-pressure-in-academia/ http://www.ctka.net/reviews/McAdams_Mantik.html If you are using Lamson, McAdams, and Nickerson as your "authorities" in this day and age, please give it up; or go back to the drawing board and do some original work for a change instead of being a recycling bin. John McAdams robbed himself of any respect, credibility, or shred of morality when he put a female graduate instructor's health in danger. And then gloated about her leaving Marquette for Colorado. (See the second entry above.) If that is the kind of human being you line up with, then it says a lot about you. In many ways. Edited December 10, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now