JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff strikes again. Another thread topic derailed. Congratulations. I'm out.

Quite a demonstration, Greg.

I asked a simple question you could have answered simply -- but instead we get a hissy fit.

GO_FIGURE

[Curtis Berkley]

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?

If the "white blob" could be simply explained as matter of being over-exposed - which everyone seems to agree that it is - isn't it feasible (and doesn't it make just as much sense) that a rad tech, handling the x-rays of a slain President, simply erred?

Is the line of thinking that this must have been the result of conspiratorial actions? If so, doesn't that smart of the false-choice fallacy, just a tad? It would seem that there are any number of possibilities to explain an over-exposed x-ray, and none of which would require any conspiracy, either large or small.

Find any practicing physician, and pose this question, "Do you normally encounter overexposed x-rays?" - and believe whatever it is that they tell you.

Even with today's ultra-modern equipment, it occurs.

[Greg Burnham]

If the "white blob" could be simply explained as matter of being over-exposed - which everyone seems to agree that it is -

You didn't even bother to read the thread!

Everyone does NOT agree that the "white patch" in the x-rays is the result of over-exposure.

Indeed, the only two persons who are currently engaged in this forum debate who are professionally trained to make such judgments, Drs. Mantik and Chesser, actually took measurements on the real autopsy x-rays, and both concluded that the x-rays were NOT over-exposed. So the truth is the opposite of what you just wrote!

Those forum members who claim otherwise can't even get into the archives to conduct tests due to lack of expertise. I wish they could get in so that they could at least attempt to provide us with quantitative data to support their scurrilous speculation. But, until they do provide quantitative data to support their claims, their conclusions are nothing more than an assortment of unsupported assertions that do not derive from the scientific method.

[Robert Prudhomme]

If the "white blob" could be simply explained as matter of being over-exposed - which everyone seems to agree that it is -

You didn't even bother to read the thread!

Everyone does NOT agree that the "white patch" in the x-rays is the result of over-exposure.

Indeed, the only two persons who are currently engaged in this forum debate who are professionally trained to make such judgments, Drs. Mantik and Chesser, actually took measurements on the real autopsy x-rays, and both concluded that the x-rays were NOT over-exposed. So the truth is the opposite of what you just wrote!

Those forum members who claim otherwise can't even get into the archives to conduct tests due to lack of expertise. I wish they could get in so that they could at least attempt to provide us with quantitative data to support their scurrilous speculation. But, until they do provide quantitative data to support their claims, their conclusions are nothing more than an assortment of unsupported assertions that do not derive from the scientific method.

"They will wear you down."

[Greg Burnham]

If the "white blob" could be simply explained as matter of being over-exposed - which everyone seems to agree that it is -

You didn't even bother to read the thread!

Everyone does NOT agree that the "white patch" in the x-rays is the result of over-exposure.

Indeed, the only two persons who are currently engaged in this forum debate who are professionally trained to make such judgments, Drs. Mantik and Chesser, actually took measurements on the real autopsy x-rays, and both concluded that the x-rays were NOT over-exposed. So the truth is the opposite of what you just wrote!

Those forum members who claim otherwise can't even get into the archives to conduct tests due to lack of expertise. I wish they could get in so that they could at least attempt to provide us with quantitative data to support their scurrilous speculation. But, until they do provide quantitative data to support their claims, their conclusions are nothing more than an assortment of unsupported assertions that do not derive from the scientific method.

"They will wear you down."

They can try.

[Jon G. Tidd]

I've seen some x-ray films of myself.

The film of my left shoulder, in which I have a bone chip embedded in muscle, is like the JFK-while-living x-ray Chesser examined.

The only x-ray I've seen of myself that is like the JFK lateral is my dental x-ray. Teeth show up as quite white on a dental x-ray.

Given what Chesser says about a part of the temporal bone, which is the densest skull bone, I don't see how the depiction of the rear of the skull in the JFK lateral is for real.

Perhaps someone here will enlighten me as to x-ray over-exposure.

[Sandy Larsen]

I've seen some x-ray films of myself.

The film of my left shoulder, in which I have a bone chip embedded in muscle, is like the JFK-while-living x-ray Chesser examined.

The only x-ray I've seen of myself that is like the JFK lateral is my dental x-ray. Teeth show up as quite white on a dental x-ray.

Given what Chesser says about a part of the temporal bone, which is the densest skull bone, I don't see how the depiction of the rear of the skull in the JFK lateral is for real.

Perhaps someone here will enlighten me as to x-ray over-exposure.

Jon,

The bright spot certainly cannot be blamed on x-ray overexposure, as overexposure results in an x-ray being darker, not brighter.

Just think it through. Which areas on an x-ray are brighter, those with thick bone or those with little or no bone? Brighter areas are those with thick bone. And the film in those areas will get what? More or less x-ray exposure? Less, of course, as the bone absorbs x-rays.

So if you see brightness on an x-ray, that means less exposure to x-rays... which can be caused by thick bone or underexposure. But NOT overexposure.

There is one thing I'd like to add to this. It is said (by experts) that greater contrast in x-ray images is attained by exposure to lower x-ray levels. Kennedy's post-assassination lateral x-ray, which shows the bright area, looks VERY contrasty to me. Because not only does it have the bright area, but the dark areas as well. If I am right, that means that the film must have been exposed to a lower level of x-rays. In other words, the film must have been somewhat underexposed. Again, NOT overexposed.

Feel free -- anybody -- to correct me anywhere I am wrong. I've repaired several x-ray machines and played around with them over the years, but I'm certainly no expert. Just a logical thinker with an engineering background. (In addition, it seems to me that variation in developing of the film could also affect the image. I have absolutely no knowledge or experience in that aspect of x-ray imaging.)

[Greg Burnham]

Very well summarized, Sandy. Indeed, overexposure results in darker x-rays not brighter. As far as the contrast issue is concerned, you may be talking about the HSCA copy of the x-rays. It has been posited that prior to public release they purposely produced copies of the x-rays with extra contrast (lower exposure?) to make some portions easier to see for the eyes of untrained lay persons. I believe that this is a possibility, but have no way of knowing which copies of the x-rays you saw.

[Sandy Larsen]

Greg,

I'll explain what I mean when I wonder if x-ray film can be developed in a way that will change it's brightness or contrast.

At the radiology clinics I've done work at, an x-ray is exposed on a cartridge, not film. A machine reads the cartridge and the x-ray image is displayed on a monitor. The technician has the option of adjusting the brightness and contrast before printing the image on x-ray film.

So I've wondered if, in the old days, there was likewise a way of adjusting the brightness and contrast, during the film development process.

A photographic expert should be able to say whether brightness and contrast can be adjusted when developing negatives. The same answer would naturally apply to x-ray development as well.