Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent


Recommended Posts

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.

Excellent point, Pat. Sometimes when I'm debating something serious I forget that the investigation was anything but serious.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here, Pat, and I seriously wonder if you are, either.

How would an x-ray tech differ in his procedure if he was rushed, as opposed to not being rushed?

Are you able to look at an x-ray and tell the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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....

107.+Zapruder+Film+(Head+Shot+Sequence+I

z335.jpg

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here, Pat, and I seriously wonder if you are, either.

How would an x-ray tech differ in his procedure if he was rushed, as opposed to not being rushed?

Are you able to look at an x-ray and tell the difference?

Taking an x-ray in 1963 was a lot like taking a photograph with a fancy camera. You had nobs with various settings, shutter speed, etc., and if you didn't get them just right, your picture would be out of focus or over-exposed, etc.

A diagnostic x-ray would be like a photograph for a magazine cover. You'd take a number of them, and fine-tune the image until you got one that's just right.

The x-rays of President Kennedy served a different purpose. They were just looking for metal. That's it. The quality x-ray machine was on a different floor. But the techs were told not to bother bringing Kennedy up to that machine and just bring down the out-dated WW-II ere portable x-ray machine, and look for metal.

They took the x-rays, which were far from ideal, but were told they were good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Pat, I don't believe a word of what you are saying. Despite the fact a portable x-ray machine was used, it is inconceivable that shoddy work would be done on the POTUS.

If it was so inaccurate, how was it able to record hundreds of dust like metal fragments in JFK's skull?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Pat, I don't believe a word of what you are saying. Despite the fact a portable x-ray machine was used, it is inconceivable that shoddy work would be done on the POTUS.

If it was so inaccurate, how was it able to record hundreds of dust like metal fragments in JFK's skull?

I suspect you're pulling my leg. Everything about the autopsy was a rush job. The doctors and the staff had very little experience with forensic autopsies, and they were rushed through the procedures they were allowed to perform by impatient generals and admirals. They were not allowed to take Kennedy to a different floor to use the machine they would normally use, and were forced to use a portable WW-II machine, which was inferior to the other machine in many ways, including that its images were far more distorted from the closeness of the ray to the film.

They were told to look for metal, so they put the machine on a setting whereby metal would be apparent. That's it. Nobody looked at the x-rays and said "Well, my, look at the size of that frontal sinus, etc" No, they looked at it and said "Well, it looks like there's some metal behind the eye. Let's dig it out and give it to the FBI."

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, you're really sticking your neck out this time. They put the machine on a setting whereby metal would be apparent? Are you serious?

I have a good friend who is the x-ray tech at our hospital. I'll get back to you after I discuss this one with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, you're really sticking your neck out this time. They put the machine on a setting whereby metal would be apparent? Are you serious?

I have a good friend who is the x-ray tech at our hospital. I'll get back to you after I discuss this one with him.

My words were somewhat confusing. Let me clarify. I'm not claiming there's a special setting which makes metal apparent. I'm saying they used a setting at which metal would be apparent--which is pretty much any of the settings they might normally use. In other words...that they weren't trying to get as thorough an image of skull damage and brain damage as they would if they were trying to document the damage to Kennedy's skull and brain, as opposed to looking for metal.

This is not a secret, by the way. This is JFK medical evidence 101 kind of stuff. The x-rays were to help them find bullets and or bullet fragments. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell you what, Pat. You make a list of all the settings they made on the portable x-ray machine, why you think they would produce poor quality x-rays and I'll check it out with my friend the x-ray tech.

"This is JFK medical evidence 101 kind of stuff." Oh my, now I'm really impressed LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Prudhomme,

I'm struck by your disbelief that anything shoddy was done.

I can't speak to the x-ray equipment or the haste-makes-waste nature of the x-ray examination.

I do believe it's clear the autopsy procedure was shoddy, as was the writing of the autopsy report. I believe further the shoddy overall quality of the autopsy was deliberate and is the reason why blog sites such as this exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Prudhomme,

I'm struck by your disbelief that anything shoddy was done.

I can't speak to the x-ray equipment or the haste-makes-waste nature of the x-ray examination.

I do believe it's clear the autopsy procedure was shoddy, as was the writing of the autopsy report. I believe further the shoddy overall quality of the autopsy was deliberate and is the reason why blog sites such as this exist.

Okay, Jon, then you answer the question.

How would an x-ray tech go about making poor quality x-rays, that are still able to portray hundreds of dust like bullet fragments in JFK's skull?

Do you seriously think the techs would not be doing their absolute best, considering the importance of the deceased, and the high ranking generals and admirals present?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here, Pat, and I seriously wonder if you are, either.

How would an x-ray tech differ in his procedure if he was rushed, as opposed to not being rushed?

Are you able to look at an x-ray and tell the difference?

Taking an x-ray in 1963 was a lot like taking a photograph with a fancy camera. You had nobs with various settings, shutter speed, etc., and if you didn't get them just right, your picture would be out of focus or over-exposed, etc.

A diagnostic x-ray would be like a photograph for a magazine cover. You'd take a number of them, and fine-tune the image until you got one that's just right.

Actually Pat, taking multiple x-rays is avoided as much as possible due to the negative affects x-ray exposure has on living tissue. Also because of the length of time required to develop the film. (These days film development isn't required, though it does take time to print the image on film.)

Standard protocols are followed for each body part. These call for specific voltage (kV) and current (mA) settings, and patient positioning. (As far as I can tell by what I've seen, the exposure time (s) is fixed.) After exposure, the film is processed. The x-ray technician will check the film to make sure nothing went wrong, but usually no additional exposure is required.

The x-rays of President Kennedy served a different purpose. They were just looking for metal. That's it. The quality x-ray machine was on a different floor. But the techs were told not to bother bringing Kennedy up to that machine and just bring down the out-dated WW-II ere portable x-ray machine, and look for metal.

I doubt the techs would use protocols different from the standard ones they used for diagnostics. An ace technician might do so if he was certain he wouldn't have to re-take the x-ray.

They took the x-rays, which were far from ideal, but were told they were good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I certainly agree that the person(s) directing Humes during the autopsy negatively affected its quality, I highly doubt the same was true with the the x-ray technicians. Because, once the x-ray machine and/or patient is positioned, making settings on the machine and exposing the x-rays takes a matter of seconds. Like five seconds. How could the person(s) directing the autopsy have any affect on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell you what, Pat. You make a list of all the settings they made on the portable x-ray machine, why you think they would produce poor quality x-rays and I'll check it out with my friend the x-ray tech.

"This is JFK medical evidence 101 kind of stuff." Oh my, now I'm really impressed LOL.

C'mon, Robert, do some reading will ya? This is from my webpage. I've posted this before.

opticaldensitycom.jpg

It shows how too short an exposure time will create an image that is too white (on the left), and how too long an exposure time will create an image that is too dark (on the right). The ideal is somewhere in the middle. In a proper autopsy, circa 1963, the x-ray techs would have been encouraged to keep trying until they got an image that was somewhere in the middle. But they were told to find metal, and not worry about creating an image with the proper mix of shades of gray--a process that was complicated to begin with due to the over-lapping bone on the right side of the skull.

The other problem with the portable was the distortion created by the shorter film to ray distance, as compared to the more modern machine upstairs.

From patspeer.com, chapter 18:

The erratic interpretations of Kennedy’s x-rays can be partially explained by the fact that Kennedy’s A-P x-ray was unusually distorted. While many think of x-rays as see-through pictures, they are actually quite different. While in a photograph one is aware of perspective, that things in the background appear smaller than they really are, in a well done x-ray there is a fairly straight shot of the x-rays through the body, and each side of the body is accurately represented in proportion to the other.

This is not always true for x-rays created on portable x-ray machines, however. Researcher Joe Durnavich discovered that The General Electric machine used to make Kennedy’s x-rays needed to be at least 72 inches away from the film to minimize magnification. In Kennedy’s case it was only 44. This meant that the x-rays hitting the film were not heading straight through Kennedy, but were spreading outwards. This meant that the x-rays hitting Kennedy’s face, by spreading outwards before they hit the film, magnified his face in comparison to the back of his head. Durnavich estimates that Kennedy’s forehead was magnified 22% when compared to the back of his head. I’ve seen similar calculations in radiology textbooks and Durnavich’s calculations appear to be accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here, Pat, and I seriously wonder if you are, either.

How would an x-ray tech differ in his procedure if he was rushed, as opposed to not being rushed?

Are you able to look at an x-ray and tell the difference?

Taking an x-ray in 1963 was a lot like taking a photograph with a fancy camera. You had nobs with various settings, shutter speed, etc., and if you didn't get them just right, your picture would be out of focus or over-exposed, etc.

A diagnostic x-ray would be like a photograph for a magazine cover. You'd take a number of them, and fine-tune the image until you got one that's just right.

Actually Pat, taking multiple x-rays is avoided as much as possible due to the negative affects x-ray exposure has on living tissue. Also because of the length of time required to develop the film. (These days film development isn't required, though it does take time to print the image on film.)

Standard protocols are followed for each body part. These call for specific voltage (kV) and current (mA) settings, and patient positioning. (As far as I can tell by what I've seen, the exposure time (s) is fixed.) After exposure, the film is processed. The x-ray technician will check the film to make sure nothing went wrong, but usually no additional exposure is required.

The x-rays of President Kennedy served a different purpose. They were just looking for metal. That's it. The quality x-ray machine was on a different floor. But the techs were told not to bother bringing Kennedy up to that machine and just bring down the out-dated WW-II ere portable x-ray machine, and look for metal.

I doubt the techs would use protocols different from the standard ones they used for diagnostics. An ace technician might do so if he was certain he wouldn't have to re-take the x-ray.

They took the x-rays, which were far from ideal, but were told they were good enough.

From what I can gather, the machine used during Kennedy's autopsy had a chart telling the techs the standard exposure time for a skull, etc. That is where the over-lapping bone comes into play. The standard settings for a skull would not apply, as part of the skull would have 50% more bone than usual, and part of the skull would have 50% less.

Here's more from chapter 18 on the x-rays...

When one compares Kennedy’s lateral autopsy x-ray to other x-rays of its time period, including x-rays taken of his own skull before his death, one can see that something is indeed odd. The contrast between its white areas and dark areas is much greater than normal. The strange appearance of this x-ray, in fact, led Dr. David Mantik to conclude this x-ray has been altered.

Now, before one gets too excited about this, one should know that virtually every radiologist to comment on the x-rays, including those who believe the x-rays demonstrate the likelihood Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, disagree with this conclusion. In Anthony Summers’ December 2001 Vanity Fair article The Ghosts of November, for example, he cited Radiologist Dr. Randy Robertson, Radiologist Patrick Burnett, and Neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley among those concluding the x-rays have NOT been tampered with. There is no comparable list of radiologists expressing the opposite opinion, and confirming Mantik's conclusions.

Still, Mantik’s observations regarding the extreme contrast of the x-rays are valid and deserve some discussion.

To that end, we need to increase our understanding of how x-rays are created, and how Kennedy’s x-rays could be so inferior. Dr. John Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist, gave a partial explanation to the HSCA when he told them “I would like to explain one thing. These films, these x-rays were taken solely for the purpose of finding what at that time was thought to be a bullet that had entered the body and had not exited. If we were looking for fine bone detail, the type of diagnostic exquisite detail we want in life, we could have taken the x-rays in the x-ray department, made the films there, but we felt that the portable x ray equipment was adequate for the purpose; i.e., locating a metallic fragment.”

The portable x-ray equipment used at Bethesda was reportedly an old General Electric 250. I suspect this means it was of World War II vintage. The 1943 guidebook Medical Radiographic Technique by General Electric’s Technical Services Division explains "Defining contrast as the degree of difference in density between adjacent areas on the film, it is not difficult to recognize that gross-overexposure or under-exposure will affect this difference." It then offers: “Technics should not be used to produce maximum contrast, but rather technics which will give satisfactory contrast for maximum visibility of structure.” The book thereby presents three x-rays of a human skull: one created with a short exposure that is too light; one created with a longer exposure that has an appropriate amount of contrast; and one created with an even longer exposure that is too dark.

It seems clear from looking at these x-rays and comparing them to Kennedy’s that his lateral x-ray was over-exposed. But it's also clear that something's wrong, as the contrast is far greater in Kennedy's over-exposed lateral x-ray than in the examples in the book. The intensity of the whiteness towards the back of Kennedy's head is so great, in fact, that it appears few x-rays ever penetrated the bone in this location. This virgin whiteness, in turn, leads the bone around it to look grey, while forcing the areas missing bone, or with air in the tissues, to look black.

Since the x-ray equipment had a chart or manual which told the x-ray techs, Custer and Reed, how long to expose an image, based on the measurements of the object being x-rayed, one wonders how they could have screwed it up so badly. A partial excuse could be related to Reed’s admission that, in order to prevent his having to re-do his work should there have been a mix-up developing the x-rays, he exposed two x-ray films at the same time, and boosted the energy level to compensate.

This is not just my assumption. On page 96, Medical Radiographic Technic shows three chest x-rays taken with different energy settings (with peaks of 50, 60, and 80 kilovolts). As you might guess, they show "excessive," "satisfactory," and "insufficient contrast," respectively. The book then claims "Of the various factors affecting density and contrast in the radiograph, that most widely used is the x-ray tube voltage." This, then, leads me to suspect that an improper combination of exposure time and energy setting caused the strange appearance of Kennedy's skull x-rays.

The thought also occurs that the unique structure of the skull, in which a fairly solid organ, the brain, is encased inside relatively thin layers of bone, only exacerbated the problems related to Custer and Reed's taking two x-rays at once.

I found confirmation for this thought in Manual of Roentgenological Technique, a textbook published in 1947. It notes that "The more nearly the density of the part examined approaches that of the surrounding tissues, the more precisely must the kilovoltage or penetrability of the rays be selected in order to give proper differentiation of the parts. While higher kilovoltage produces greater penetration, lower kilovoltage values produce a greater degree of contrast in the structure of varying density. Over-penetrated roentgenograms present a grey lack of contrast and under-penetrated films show a chalky increase of contrast which is equally objectionable." It seems possible from this that Kennedy's skull x-rays were both under-penetrated and over-exposed, and that this unfortunate combination led to their strange appearance. Perhaps Reed had failed to properly set the energy level. Perhaps, should one study numerous x-rays made with similar equipment, at various settings, one would find the peculiar appearance of Kennedy's x-rays not so peculiar at all.

This possibility is further supported by a book I picked up at a thrift store, almost as a joke. Textbook of Veterinary Diagnostic Radiology (1986) relates: "The degree of blackening of the x-ray film is measured in terms of optical density. Optical density and film blackness are directly related...Of particular importance in patient radiography is the fact that x-rays are not absorbed homogeneously by the body; some tissues absorb x-rays more efficiently than others. This phenomenon is called differential absorption...it is important to recognize that the degree of differential absorption of x-rays by the patient is a function of x-ray energy. As the energy of x-rays increases, so does their penetrability. Thus, when higher energy x-rays are used, the lesser is the degree of differential absorption by the patient. When lower energy x-rays are used there is more difference between the radiopacity of bone and soft tissue."

And should one think my quoting a book on veterinary radiology inappropriate, one should know that I've confirmed this point in more appropriate textbooks as well. Limited Radiography (1999), for example, holds that:

"A diagnostic quality radiograph should have adequate density (blackness), good contrast (range of gray shades), clear recorded detail (definition and resolution), and no visual distortion or magnification (size and shape) of the anatomy being examined... Production of the visible radiographic image is controlled by the following exposure factors: milliamperage, kilovoltage peak, and source-to-image distance... The two major photographic factors of the image are 1) density and 2) contrast. Density is seen as the overall blackness of the total image. Density is controlled by milliamperage-seconds... The density of the radiograph is directly proportional to the amount of milliamperage used for exposure and length of time the exposure is delivered (referred to as milliamperage-seconds setting)...Density is directly proportional to milliamperage and time... Distance, or source-to-image distance has a significant influence on density... Simply put, the radiation beam diverges and proceeds in a straight path... The area covered becomes increasingly larger with lessened intensity as the beam of radiation travels a greater distance from the source... Contrast is the second major photographic factor... Radiographic contrast results from the distribution of black metallic silver in the film emulsion and is directly controlled by the penetrating effects of kilovoltage. Radiographic contrast is visualized in the image as gray tones or degrees of gray that reveal the differences between body organs or tissues. Contrast enhances information... Contrast is controlled by the kilovoltage or, more technically, the quality of energy or wavelength (short or long)... A variety of long and short wavelengths (low and high energies) will demonstrate a range of shades from black to gray to white (gray tones) and their density differences. The differences are easily seen in the structures visible in the radiographic image... Radiographic contrast is generally referred to as the overall contrast seen in the image. It includes long-scale (more gray tones) contrast and short-scale (more black and white tones) contrast. Radiation of higher energy (shorter wave-length), 70 kilovoltage peak or more, will produce long-scale contrast with many gray tones... If there are large differences in the thickness of body structures, e.g., bone vs. soft tissue, or if 70 kilovoltage and lower is used, short-scale contrast with more pronounced black and white tones will be produced... the degree of density is proportionate to the milliamperage-seconds...By comparison, contrast is controlled by kilovoltage peak... It should be noted that although kilovoltage peak and milliamperage seconds have an interactive effect in increasing or decreasing contrast and density respectively, they may not be interchanged to compensate for the lack of one or the other... if structures are underpenetrated due to a lack of kilovoltage peak, no amount of milliamperage-seconds increase will improve the penetration; added milliamperage-seconds will only add density... Conversely, if an image is underexposed and lacks density, milliamperage-seconds must be added; kilovoltage peak would add only scattered radiation and thus cause the image to look gray and flat without clarity."

It seems quite possible, then, that Kennedy's x-rays were under-penetrated and overexposed, and that this caused their unusual appearance. An article by Dr. E. Robert Heitzman in the February 2000 issue of Radiology, moreover, backs this up. In this article, Heitzman notes the major advances in radiology of the 20th century. He proceeds to explain "Another important advance in radiographic technique occurred in the 1940s. This was the development of the automatic film processor introduced by the PAKO Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1942...The automatic film processor was a great boon to the standardization of radiography. Prior to the advent of the automatic film processor, films were moved manually through the developing, fixing, washing, and drying cycles. Clothing was often destroyed by chemical stains. Radiographs were often of substandard quality. In fact, it was a frequent practice in radiography to overexpose the film when exposure factors were in doubt, the rationale being that one could always compensate by underdevelopment in the darkroom. Overexposed and underdeveloped films were commonplace." An automatic film processor was, from what can be gathered from Reed's and Custer's statements, not used at Bethesda on November 22, 1963.

And this was not the only help offered by Heitzman. In his article, he further explains that in 1945 a device developed by Dr. Russell Morgan (yes, the very same Russell Morgan who would later serve on the Clark Panel) reached the market, and that this device--which Morgan called a phototimer-- "standardized radiographic exposures; previously, it had been common to see radiographs grossly overexposed or underexposed." The General Electric 250 kv portable x-ray machine used to create Kennedy's x-rays, from what can be gathered, had no such device.

So, yes, it seems quite possible that the strange appearance of Kennedy's x-rays came as a direct result of the inferior equipment used in their creation.

And yet... Dr. Mantik, who is by trade a radiation oncologist, and not a radiologist, has failed to address this possibility. In a quick study of his statements on the the x-rays online and in books, I found a reference to his comparing the x-rays to one of Kennedy while alive, to those of his own patients, and to 19 x-rays of gunshot wounds to the head, courtesy Dr. Doug DeSalles. (Curiously, in his summary of Mantik's studies in his book Inside the ARRB, Doug Horne reports this last number as 9.) In all Mantik's writings, however, I found no reference to his ever attempting a comparison to x-rays taken with the equipment used on November 22, 1963, at various settings.

There's just no reason to believe that the non-Kennedy x-rays studied by Mantik, his controls per se, were created under similar circumstances to those created at Kennedy's autopsy. As described by Dr. Ebersole in his testimony before the HSCA, Kennedy's x-rays were created as part of a desperate attempt to find bullets in Kennedy's body, and were not an attempt to create a proper and thorough record of Kennedy's injuries. Medical Radiographic Technic explains the significance of this; it relates that the compensation for the various factors affecting the quality of an image "is very often unpredictable when the patient first presents himself, making necessary the acceptance of a 'first film' which may be markedly under or overexposed." Well, were Mantik's "control" x-rays "first films"? We have reason to be skeptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...