JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent

[Pat Speer]

I regret that my comments helped steer this thread into yet another discussion of the large head wound. The main point I was trying to make was that the title of the thread is somewhat misleading. The word "fraudulent" suggests that the x-rays are not Kennedy's x-rays, or that they have been altered to conceal his wounds. Well, Mantik doesn't say this at all. Mantik has long held that his study of the x-rays proves that they are Kennedy's x-rays, and that a hole on the back of the head is apparent on these x-rays. Now, he also says that a "white patch" has been added to the lateral x-rays, and a white blob the size of a carcano bullet has been added to the AP x-ray as well. But he thinks these were added to make people think a bullet entered the back of the head, and not to conceal the wound on the back of Kennedy's head he claims to have found on the x-rays.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

Doesn't it seem odd that these same doctors did NOT report a large gaping wound on any other part of JFK's head, considering the fact that every other part of JFK's head was completely visible to them?

I've often wondered why more of the Parkland witnesses didn't see at least *some* of the large wound in the right-front of JFK's head.

From a July 2011 Internet discussion:

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have also wondered why very, very few of the Parkland Hospital witnesses said they saw the large exit wound on the right side of JFK's head (which is an exit wound that we positively KNOW was there when JFK was in the emergency room at Parkland)?

Even if Jackie Kennedy closed up the flap of scalp on the right side of the President's head (which I think is quite possible), I would still think that a lot more people at Parkland would have been able to see the outline or at least SOME portion of the gaping RIGHT-FRONT exit wound, which is the wound that was causing (IMO) the large amount of "pooling" of blood toward the right-rear of JFK's head (which is what I believe to be the best explanation [to date] for how those Parkland witnesses could have all been mistaken about the location of the wound).

But I've never been totally pleased with that "pooling" explanation, mainly because I'm wondering why nobody at Parkland claimed to see TWO wounds on the right side of the President's head:

1.) The place where the blood and brain tissue was "pooling" (the right-rear; which was mistaken for an actual HOLE in the President's head).

and:

2.) The actual exit wound itself, located in the Right/Front/Top area of JFK's head, which is an exit-wound location that is confirmed in several different ways -- e.g., the Zapruder Film, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, and the autopsy doctors' remarks about the exit wound location in post-1963 interviews, including these firm and unambiguous comments made by Dr. James Humes on CBS-TV in 1967:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head."

-- Dr. Humes; June 1967

BTW, I was a believer in the "Blood Pooling" theory before I ever read Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book. So it wasn't Mr. Bugliosi or Dr. Baden who convinced me that this is probably the best explanation for the Parkland witnesses' BOH observations. In fact, before reading Vince's book, I was truly hoping that VB would drop a bombshell on me and come up with something different and, frankly, BETTER, to explain away those BOH witnesses. But, alas, Vince doesn't have any better explanation than the "pooling" theory described by Dr. Baden in the book excerpt shown below:

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head"." -- Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi

In 2006, I was theorizing the exact same thing:

"If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many different observers could all see the same (wrong) thing regarding JFK's head wound, I'd say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive amount of blood coming from the President's large wound on the right side of his head was pooling toward the BACK of his head while he was resting flat on his back on the hospital stretcher, creating the incorrect impression to the observers that the wound was located where the greatest amount of blood was seen." -- DVP; December 10, 2006

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/boh-part-16.html

Dear David (and Bugsy, wherever you are)

Even IF Jackie had closed up a large gaping wound in the right front of JFK's skull (a miraculous accomplishment if ever I heard of one) there is something very simple that you are forgetting.

Unless Jackie had Krazy Glue and a tube of silicone to close up and seal this wound, something very obvious would have been going on in Trauma Room One that would have given away the "secret" and "hidden" great gaping wound in the right front of JFK's skull. JFK was being given blood transfusions and closed heart massage (we call it CPR and do chest compressions these days) was being performed in order to keep circulation and perfusion of the cells with oxygen ongoing. As there were large arteries severed inside of JFK's cranium, with each chest compression a great spout of transfused blood would take the path of least resistance and shoot out the open ends of this artery. It would not take many chest compressions before fresh blood would make it, in great amounts, past the "seal" that Jackie had supposedly made on the head wound. It would make a great mess of blood, and no amount of hair would be able to hide it.

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

[David Von Pein]

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....

Edited December 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

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

So how about this? There was no such wound to see at Parkland. (Obviously.) The gaping wound in the right side of the head was created by the butchers who conducted a pre-autopsy "autopsy." The Z film was then altered accordingly to show how this wound "occurred" in Dealey Plaza.

And before DVP pipes in with witness Newman's statement, Newman would have seen the back of JFK's head blown out, and must have been mistaken in that traumatic instant that the wound was more forward. What he thinks he saw simply can't be reconciled with what the Parkland doctors didn't see at close range and for an extended period.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Robert Prudhomme]

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

So how about this? There was no such wound to see at Parkland. (Obviously.) The gaping wound in the right side of the head was created by the butchers who conducted a pre-autopsy "autopsy." The Z film was then altered accordingly to show how this wound "occurred" in Dealey Plaza.

And before DVP pipes in with witness Newman's statement, Newman would have seen the back of JFK's head blown out, and must have been mistaken in that traumatic instant that the wound was more forward. What he thinks he saw simply can't reconciled with what the Parkland doctors didn't see at close range and for an extended period.

Hi Ron

Do you think they might have "patched" the big hole in the back of the head back together so that it would fall apart like a broken egg shell, as Humes described it?

[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?

Edited December 13, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[David Von Pein]

So how about this? There was no such wound to see at Parkland. (Obviously.) The gaping wound in the right side of the head was created by the butchers who conducted a pre-autopsy "autopsy." The Z film was then altered accordingly to show how this wound "occurred" in Dealey Plaza.

How did the unknown "they" (the film-alterers) manage to fake/alter the Z-Film so fast---BEFORE any of the three copies were made?

Or do you think "they" somehow performed a miracle by faking the film FOUR separate times (once for the original film and then they faked each of the three copies separately after those copies were created at Jamieson's)?

Any way you cut it --- it's impossible and unrealistic (not to mention ridiculous). But that never stopped an alterationist from proposing such silliness.

And before DVP pipes in with witness Newman's statement, Newman would have seen the back of JFK's head blown out, and must have been mistaken in that traumatic instant that the wound was more forward. What he thinks he saw simply can't be reconciled with what the Parkland doctors didn't see at close range and for an extended period.

Oops! Looks like you've forgotten a first-day witness (who appeared on WFAA-TV at 2:31 PM, Dallas time, just two hours after he filmed the assassination with his own camera). Was Abraham Zapruder being TOLD where to place his hand here?:

And then there's Gayle Newman as well. Was she part of the never-ending cover-up too, Ron? And this image was captured at approximately 1:18 PM CST, just 48 minutes after JFK was shot:

Edited December 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

Okay, how about this? All those Parkland doctors were the equivalent of three blind mice. They couldn't see that gaping wound in the side of JFK's head if someone had pointed to it and demanded that they look at it. Even if Jackie had stepped up and opened a head wound that she had sealed shut, the poor doctors couldn't have seen it because they were all as blind as bats.

Someone should do some research on why Parkland Hospital was never investigated for having blind doctors working on emergency patients.

[Greg Burnham]

I regret that my comments helped steer this thread into yet another discussion of the large head wound. The main point I was trying to make was that the title of the thread is somewhat misleading. The word "fraudulent" suggests that the x-rays are not Kennedy's x-rays, or that they have been altered to conceal his wounds. Well, Mantik doesn't say this at all. Mantik has long held that his study of the x-rays proves that they are Kennedy's x-rays, and that a hole on the back of the head is apparent on these x-rays. Now, he also says that a "white patch" has been added to the lateral x-rays, and a white blob the size of a carcano bullet has been added to the AP x-ray as well. But he thinks these were added to make people think a bullet entered the back of the head, and not to conceal the wound on the back of Kennedy's head he claims to have found on the x-rays.

Pat,

I consider David to be a rather close friend both within the JFK Research Critical Community and without it.

I have spent hours upon hours with David discussing these things and you do not represent his views well at all. You simply do not seem to comprehend what you are reading. It's as if his work is written in a language that you think you understand, but you really do not. Please stop.

Although you may disagree with his 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.

The proper approach for you to employ should conform to the scientific method. That means you should go to the National Archives yourself and perform some scientific experiments in the hope that you will find support for your hypothesis.

Of course, the National Archives may refuse to grant you the same or similar access--as that which is enjoyed by Doctors Mantik and Chesser--on the grounds that you lack the proper training, expertise, experience, know-how, and required instruments to perform whatever experiments are needed to confirm or refute the MEASUREMENTS taken by Mantik and Chesser.

So, for starters, you would need to bring with you a person who is qualified or at least sufficiently competent to satisfy the requirements. I believe you will need to seek permission from the Kennedy Family's counsel. He most likely will want to know your experience in handling autopsy materials, etc.

Knock yourself out and get back to us when you have something scientific.

Should be no problem for you.

[James DiEugenio]

How did, "no one at Parkland saw it" get started?

I mean, this is what the HSCA BS was all about. But they admitted several witnesses at Parkland saw a blowout in the rear of the skull.

All you have to do is read Aguilar's essay in MIDP to comprehend this. After all he is the guy who called them on this and no one could explain it.

On page 199, he places two charts, one from witnesses at Parkland, the other from witnesses at Bethesda. He has something like 21 witnesses at Parkland saying the blow out was in the right rear of the skull.

And BTW, I always thought that this long essay called "The Converging Medical Case for Conspiracy" was the best thing he ever wrote. In fact, I think its one of the very best essays on the medical evidence in the literature.

As per the Z film, this is the focal point of the Z film research being done by Sydney Wilkinson. I saw one of her presentations. I am not big on this subject, but her presentation is the most credible case for Z film alteration I have ever seen. If they are right, then the Z film does show a blow out on the rear of the skull.

Case Closed.

Edited December 13, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

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

So how about this? There was no such wound to see at Parkland. (Obviously.) The gaping wound in the right side of the head was created by the butchers who conducted a pre-autopsy "autopsy." The Z film was then altered accordingly to show how this wound "occurred" in Dealey Plaza.

And before DVP pipes in with witness Newman's statement, Newman would have seen the back of JFK's head blown out, and must have been mistaken in that traumatic instant that the wound was more forward. What he thinks he saw simply can't be reconciled with what the Parkland doctors didn't see at close range and for an extended period.

Oh boy. While I honestly do regret this becoming yet another back of the head thread, I can't let you go after Newman without pointing out Newman is the rule and not the exception. In chapter 18c I go through the earliest statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and those who saw Kennedy in the limo, and there is a virtually unanimous agreement among them that the head wound was on the right top side of the head. This stands in stark contrast to the number of those who saw a wound in the middle of the back of the head. Which was zero.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

How did, "no one at Parkland saw it" get started?

I mean, this is what the HSCA BS was all about. But they admitted several witnesses at Parkland saw a blowout in the rear of the skull.

All you have to do is read Aguilar's essay in MIDP to comprehend this. After all he is the guy who called them on this and no one could explain it.

On page 199, he places two charts, one from witnesses at Parkland, the other from witnesses at Bethesda. He has something like 21 witnesses at Parkland saying the blow out was in the right rear of the skull.

And BTW, I always thought that this long essay called "The Converging Medical Case for Conspiracy" was the best thing he ever wrote. In fact, I think its one of the very best essays on the medical evidence in the literature.

As per the Z film, this is the focal point of the Z film research being done by Sydney Wilkinson. I saw one of her presentations. I am not big on this subject, but her presentation is the most credible case for Z film alteration I have ever seen. If they are right, then the Z film does show a blow out on the rear of the skull.

Case Closed.

The "it" as I recall was the wound on the top of the head shown in the Z-film, autopsy photos, and x-rays, and not the wound many of them claimed to see towards the back of the head. Some, such as Groden, have tried to convince people there were two wounds--a large one on the back of the head and the "official" one near the temple shown in the medical evidence. It follows then that the Parkland witnesses somehow missed seeing the "official" wound.

This is a point upon which myself and Lifton agree, for that matter. He says there was but one large wound--on the back of the head--and that the location of this wound was moved through surgery to the head. I also believe there was but one large wound, but that a variety of factors led some of the Parkland witnesses to incorrectly recall the location for this wound.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

My response in bold.

I regret that my comments helped steer this thread into yet another discussion of the large head wound. The main point I was trying to make was that the title of the thread is somewhat misleading. The word "fraudulent" suggests that the x-rays are not Kennedy's x-rays, or that they have been altered to conceal his wounds. Well, Mantik doesn't say this at all. Mantik has long held that his study of the x-rays proves that they are Kennedy's x-rays, and that a hole on the back of the head is apparent on these x-rays. Now, he also says that a "white patch" has been added to the lateral x-rays, and a white blob the size of a carcano bullet has been added to the AP x-ray as well. But he thinks these were added to make people think a bullet entered the back of the head, and not to conceal the wound on the back of Kennedy's head he claims to have found on the x-rays.

Pat,

I consider David to be a rather close friend both within the JFK Research Critical Community and without it.

Maybe that's the problem.

I have spent hours upon hours with David discussing these things and you do not represent his views well at all. You simply do not seem to comprehend what you are reading. It's as if his work is written in a language that you think you understand, but you really do not. Please stop.

Wrong. I seem to be the one person actually following David's arguments. Your old pal Fetzer used to boast about how his friend Mantik had shown how there was a an artificial white spot placed over the back of the head where the Harper fragment was missing from the x-rays. Jim Douglass claimed much the same thing. Having read Mantik's papers, however, I knew that this was bunkum, and told Fetzer as much. Whereby his fangs came out and he told me I knew nothing and was no expert, etc. (Much as you are doing now.) He then contacted Mantik and Mantik told him...I was right. He admitted that his placement of the Harper fragment did not correspond to the location of the white spot. He said the same thing on the CTKA website, and then again at the Pittsburgh conference. At the Pittsburgh conference, moreover, Mantik and I presented our conflicting interpretations of the Harper fragment. I prepared a couple of slides in which I demonstrated a huge mistake he'd made, which he hadn't been able to bring himself to admit. We agreed that he would go first. Well, he saved me some awkwardness, and himself some embarrassment, by admitting this mistake in his presentation. His mistake is described on the following slide:

Although you may disagree with his 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.

The proper approach for you to employ should conform to the scientific method. That means you should go to the National Archives yourself and perform some scientific experiments in the hope that you will find support for your hypothesis.

Of course, the National Archives may refuse to grant you the same or similar access--as that which is enjoyed by Doctors Mantik and Chesser--on the grounds that you lack the proper training, expertise, experience, know-how, and required instruments to perform whatever experiments are needed to confirm or refute the MEASUREMENTS taken by Mantik and Chesser.

So, for starters, you would need to bring with you a person who is qualified or at least sufficiently competent to satisfy the requirements. I believe you will need to seek permission from the Kennedy Family's counsel. He most likely will want to know your experience in handling autopsy materials, etc.

Knock yourself out and get back to us when you have something scientific.

Should be no problem for you.

Jeez, Greg. Really? This is the exact same argument made by Dr. Zimmerman when I show him up. "Well, if you know so much why don't you go to the archives and see for yourself, blah blah blah." Doctors have a hard time getting in. Non-doctors are verboten. And besides, what hypothesis? That Mantik's conclusions are incorrect? That his fervent belief the Harper fragment is occipital bone is absolute bananas is readily apparent, once one opens up an anatomy book. Wait? You haven't done this? Here, I'll do it for you.

[Ron Ecker]

Oh boy. While I honestly do regret this becoming yet another back of the head thread, I can't let you go after Newman without pointing out Newman is the rule and not the exception. In chapter 18c I go through the earliest statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and those who saw Kennedy in the limo, and there is a virtually unanimous agreement among them that the head wound was on the right top side of the head. This stands in stark contrast to the number of those who saw a wound in the middle of the back of the head. Which was zero.

The crux of the matter is that the Dealey Plaza witnesses saw a wound inflicted that the Parkland doctors did not see when the body was right in front of them. This defies explanation. I know what your theory is about the head wound - that the Parkland doctors only thought it was in the back of the head when it wasn't - but I can't buy your theory. What is left is a mystery that seems to border on the supernatural. And I see no way it will ever be solved. But I do give you credit for trying.

[Pat Speer]

Oh boy. While I honestly do regret this becoming yet another back of the head thread, I can't let you go after Newman without pointing out Newman is the rule and not the exception. In chapter 18c I go through the earliest statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and those who saw Kennedy in the limo, and there is a virtually unanimous agreement among them that the head wound was on the right top side of the head. This stands in stark contrast to the number of those who saw a wound in the middle of the back of the head. Which was zero.

The crux of the matter is that the Dealey Plaza witnesses saw a wound inflicted that the Parkland doctors did not see when the body was right in front of them. This defies explanation. I know what your theory is about the head wound - that the Parkland doctors only thought it was in the back of the head when it wasn't - but I can't buy your theory. What is left is a mystery that seems to border on the supernatural. And I see no way it will ever be solved. But I do give you credit for trying.

Thanks, Ron. Of course, one of the points I was trying to make got lost in the mess. There were three Parkland witnesses at the Lancer conference. Two of them described the head wound. Neither of them described a wound on the back of the head, or expressed any reservation about the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

Salyer, moreover, was quite articulate on the matter. He said he saw a wound on the right side of the head by the ear, and that he had no explanation as to why so many of his fellow doctors thought this wound was on the back of the head. He said he had the utmost respect for Dr. McClelland, but could not understand why he's said some of the things he's said. Jenksin said much the same thing about his buddy O'Connor. Their recollections differed on a number of points, and they couldn't figure out why.

So it's not just a mystery to us, but to the witnesses themselves.