JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent

[Greg Burnham]

PLEASE NOTE:

This thread is NOT about the Harper Fragment, the Zapruder Film, the anti-Castro Cubans, or space aliens.

It is about the MEDICAL EVIDENCE --

Specifically: It is about the JFK cranial optical densitometry measurements taken from the pre-mortem x-Rays at the JFK Library vs. the JFK cranial optical densitometry measurements taken from the post-mortem autopsy x-Rays, which are currently housed at the National Archives. Of particular interest is the fact that they do not match each other by a long shot, yet, to be authentic, they must.

I would like to congratulate those who derailed this thread.

I started a new topic to get back on track here: A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs

Edited December 14, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Sandy Larsen]

My response in bold.

Although you may disagree with [Dr. Mantik's] expert opinion (as a Doctor of Physics) and with his methodology (as a Medical Doctor, Board Certified in Radiology by profession), thus far you have not offered anything remotely resembling science.

Let's be clear. He tested a couple of dozen modern x-rays and found that their OD levels didn't match Kennedy's x-rays. He performed no tests using the equipment used to make Kennedy's x-rays, and, presumably, no tests on which the skull had overlapping bone. As a result, he compared apples and oranges. If this was science, it wasn't good science.

Pat,

Why do you believe it would be necessary for Dr. Mantik to do tests on the equipment used to make the x-ray? Radiologists can read x-rays without knowing anything about the equipment used to make them. Furthermore, Dr. Mantik used the optical density of the petrous temporal bone as a frame of reference for all his measurements, thereby expressing them as ratios, thus taking into account variations in exposure levels and film processing.

Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist, took a look at Mantik's findings, and basically dismissed them. He also said the white patch could be explained by over-lapping bone, the same conclusion I came to without realizing he'd done so.

It's like this. Mantik has studied lateral x-rays in which there are 2 layers of bone, one on each side of the head, and compared them against the petrous bone, normally the whitest part of the x-rays, and the darkest areas of the x-ray. The white patch on the Kennedy x-ray, if it represents over-lapping bone, a la Fitzpatrick, however, is three layers of bone.

Pat,

Why would there be an extra skull bone fragment in place, thus causing the white patch? I think Dr. Fitzpatrick is wrong if that is what he believes.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Isn't it funny that none of the Parkland doctors saw something so obvious, and right out in the open?

Yes, I agree. It is.

But there's also no doubt whatsoever that a great big hole WAS there in the RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of JFK's head.

And here's the inescapable proof....

Dave (and Bugsy, wherever you are)

Did anyone ever figure out what that strange bag-like thing is that can be seen hanging on the right side of JFK's head? It's not brain matter, that's for sure. Whatever it was, Jackie must have had a devil of a time getting it all stuffed back inside JFK's skull, and getting all the bone pieces and scalp sections matched up, so the Parkland doctors would never be able to see this wound. Clint Hill was right there. Funny that he never described her doing re-constructive skull surgery, isn't it.

Hey, if this wound was closed up, and the Parkland doctors could not see a wound in the back of JFK's head, how did they know there was a large head wound?

And another question.

If Jackie glued everything on the right front of JFK's head back together, to the point the Parkland doctors could not even see this wound, why wasn't it still glued back together when JFK got to Bethesda? From what I recall, the coffin had a pretty smooth trip across country, and I don't remember any reports of them dropping the coffin.

Why do the autopsy photos show the right front of the head as a large gaping wound, if it left Parkland as an undetectable wound?

Bumped for David (and Bugsy, wherever you are)

My apologies to Greg Burnham for being part of the sidetracking this thread took. It happened so gradually, I was unaware at first it had occurred. I will make a point of staying on topic in the future, once I get a handle on my ADHD.

In the meantime, bumped for David (and Bugsy, wherever you are)

Edited December 14, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Ron Ecker]

Part of Dr. Chesser's argument is that there was a large hole in the back of JFK's head. If discussing JFK's head wound, specifically its location, is seen as a sidetracking of the thread, I have to disagree.

With respect to Dr. Chesser's study of the density of JFK's skull in x-rays before and after, that's certainly important information in support of x-ray fabrication. However, I don't know how much we laymen are realistically expected to say about it. Let me say it was good work!

[Pat Speer]

My response in bold.

Although you may disagree with [Dr. Mantik's] expert opinion (as a Doctor of Physics) and with his methodology (as a Medical Doctor, Board Certified in Radiology by profession), thus far you have not offered anything remotely resembling science.

Let's be clear. He tested a couple of dozen modern x-rays and found that their OD levels didn't match Kennedy's x-rays. He performed no tests using the equipment used to make Kennedy's x-rays, and, presumably, no tests on which the skull had overlapping bone. As a result, he compared apples and oranges. If this was science, it wasn't good science.

Pat,

Why do you believe it would be necessary for Dr. Mantik to do tests on the equipment used to make the x-ray? Radiologists can read x-rays without knowing anything about the equipment used to make them. Furthermore, Dr. Mantik used the optical density of the petrous temporal bone as a frame of reference for all his measurements, thereby expressing them as ratios, thus taking into account variations in exposure levels and film processing.

Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist, took a look at Mantik's findings, and basically dismissed them. He also said the white patch could be explained by over-lapping bone, the same conclusion I came to without realizing he'd done so.

It's like this. Mantik has studied lateral x-rays in which there are 2 layers of bone, one on each side of the head, and compared them against the petrous bone, normally the whitest part of the x-rays, and the darkest areas of the x-ray. The white patch on the Kennedy x-ray, if it represents over-lapping bone, a la Fitzpatrick, however, is three layers of bone.

Pat,

Why would there be an extra skull bone fragment in place, thus causing the white patch? I think Dr. Fitzpatrick is wrong if that is what he believes.

I demonstrate the relationship between the wing of bone and the white patch on the following slide. (To be clear, my interpretation of the wing location is on the bottom right. The 'red" wing on the left comes from an article by Joe Durnavich which I came to believe was incorrect.)

Edited December 14, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Any reason to regard the cervical x-ray as inauthentic?

The title of this thread is..."JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent"

Does that go for the cervical x-ray?

[Greg Burnham]

David Mantik Responds to Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Any reason to regard the cervical x-ray as inauthentic?

The title of this thread is..."JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent"

Does that go for the cervical x-ray?

Greg, I'll take your non-response as a "no."

There is no reason to believe the cervical x-ray is anything but authentic.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Head Wound/s Rabbit Hole Hour...

[Cliff Varnell]

For what it's worth:

At the Cracking the Case Conference in '05 -- when I regarded myself as a member of a community rather than a critic of said community -- I ambushed Rollie Zavada and David Wrone as they were descending from the stage after a program.

As they stepped down toward me I blurted at Zavada -- "Mantik's bone density studies?"

Rollie looked confused and checked with Wrone, who said -- "David Mantik's study of the densities in the cranial x-rays."

Rollie nodded his head and said: "Over-exposure."

Edited December 15, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Dawn Meredith]

DVP: [EVEN THOUGH HE'S "DEALING" WITH ME RIGHT NOW,

See how long it is before I deal with you directly again.

As long as people continue to reply to him he will continue with his "evidence". It makes me wonder just why he is sooo very active on a JFK assassination forum. I know plenty of lawyers- and non lawyers- who are lone nutters but they never go on forums such as these.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert Prudhomme, on 13 Dec 2015 - 10:50 AM, said:

Robert Prudhomme, on 12 Dec 2015 - 10:12 PM, said:

David Von Pein, on 12 Dec 2015 - 9:41 PM, said:

Robert “Bob” Prudhomme said

Isn't it funny that none of the Parkland doctors saw something so obvious, and right out in the open?

Yes, I agree. It is.

But there's also no doubt whatsoever that a great big hole WAS there in the RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of JFK's head.

And here's the inescapable proof....

Dave (and Bugsy, wherever you are)

Did anyone ever figure out what that strange bag-like thing is that can be seen hanging on the right side of JFK's head? It's not brain matter, that's for sure. Whatever it was, Jackie must have had a devil of a time getting it all stuffed back inside JFK's skull, and getting all the bone pieces and scalp sections matched up, so the Parkland doctors would never be able to see this wound. Clint Hill was right there. Funny that he never described her doing re-constructive skull surgery, isn't it.

Hey, if this wound was closed up, and the Parkland doctors could not see a wound in the back of JFK's head, how did they know there was a large head wound?

And another question.

If Jackie glued everything on the right front of JFK's head back together, to the point the Parkland doctors could not even see this wound, why wasn't it still glued back together when JFK got to Bethesda? From what I recall, the coffin had a pretty smooth trip across country, and I don't remember any reports of them dropping the coffin.

Why do the autopsy photos show the right front of the head as a large gaping wound, if it left Parkland as an undetectable wound?

Bumped again for David (and Bugsy, wherever you are)

[Sandy Larsen]

Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist, took a look at Mantik's findings, and basically dismissed them. He also said the white patch could be explained by over-lapping bone, the same conclusion I came to without realizing he'd done so.

It's like this. Mantik has studied lateral x-rays in which there are 2 layers of bone, one on each side of the head, and compared them against the petrous bone, normally the whitest part of the x-rays, and the darkest areas of the x-ray. The white patch on the Kennedy x-ray, if it represents over-lapping bone, a la Fitzpatrick, however, is three layers of bone.

Pat,

Why would there be an extra skull bone fragment in place, thus causing the white patch? I think Dr. Fitzpatrick is wrong if that is what he believes.

I demonstrate the relationship between the wing of bone and the white patch on the following slide. (To be clear, my interpretation of the wing location is on the bottom right. The 'red" wing on the left comes from an article by Joe Durnavich which I came to believe was incorrect.)

It took a little digging to find out what you mean by "wing." Now that I understand that, yeah what you say does seem to make sense.

Dr. Mantik apparently doesn't believe that the third layer of skull bone would sufficiently block enough x-rays to get the OD readings he got. (Actually, the OD ratio he calculated.)

The problem I see is that there should be a discontinuity on the x-ray film forming an outline the same size and shape as the wing fragment. And it seems that a radiologist would notice such a thing right away. But that's something I'd have to ask a radiologist about.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I see what you mean now, Sandy. Yes it should have affected the density measurements, unless the "wing" was folded back while the x-ray was taken maybe?

[Sandy Larsen]

I see what you mean now, Sandy. Yes it should have affected the density measurements, unless the "wing" was folded back while the x-ray was taken maybe?

Well, I just assumed that those taking the x-rays would have held fragments roughly in place, or at least out of the way. I have a radiologist friend who owns a clinic, and he pays me to repair his machines, including x-ray machines. I've seen the technicians taking x-rays, and I just can't imagine them just letting things hang down and obstruct their x-rays. They would know, I am sure, that that would negatively impact the usefulness of the x-ray. They would know that the radiologist would set them straight.

But then, maybe things weren't done so professionally at the JFK autopsy.

[Pat Speer]

I see what you mean now, Sandy. Yes it should have affected the density measurements, unless the "wing" was folded back while the x-ray was taken maybe?

Well, I just assumed that those taking the x-rays would have held fragments roughly in place, or at least out of the way. I have a radiologist friend who owns a clinic, and he pays me to repair his machines, including x-ray machines. I've seen the technicians taking x-rays, and I just can't imagine them just letting things hang down and obstruct their x-rays. They would know, I am sure, that that would negatively impact the usefulness of the x-ray. They would know that the radiologist would set them straight.

But then, maybe things weren't done so professionally at the JFK autopsy.

It was not a diagnostic x-ray, where the techs were trying to measure the comparative density of various parts of the brain, or looking for a tumor, or a hairline fracture, etc. The x-rays were rush jobs in pursuit of metal. The doctors were trying to find bullet fragments. That's all.

And it worked. They found a fragment behind the eye with a smaller fragment next to it.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Pat Speer