JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent

[Sandy Larsen]

Horne (and I presume Mantik) assume Custer and Reed got all scared once shown the originals, and lied. That's pretty pathetic, IMO. It's amazing how so many of the medical witnesses (e.g. Carrico, Jenkins, Perry, Ebersole, Custer, Reed, Stringer, Riebe) are heroes when they tell people like Lifton, Mantik and Horne what they to hear, but are written off as liars and cowards when they tell them what they don't want to hear.

Did Horne really call them cowards?

I don't think they are cowards. But I do believe their earlier testimonies are more accurate than their later ones. Particularly given that they fairly well match the early testimonies of the huge majority of eyewitnesses.

[Sandy Larsen]

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

The Zapruder film was not privately owned. Life Magazine bought the rights for $1,000,000 in today's dollars. Very few people saw the Z film till Geraldo Rivera televised it in 1975. And the ones who did see it lied about it.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Zapruder's film was privately owned (by Abraham Zapruder) at the time it was developed, processed, and copied for the Secret Service on 11/22/63. And that's the most important timeframe that I was referring to when I said the film was a "privately-owned non-Government home movie".

Because in order for the silly Z-Film Alterationists to have a prayer of being right about the film being altered, that film certainly MUST have been altered BEFORE any of the three copies were made at the Jamieson film lab on November 22nd. And there's no way in hell anyone "altered" the film that quickly. Not even George Reeves as Superman could have accomplished that ultra-fast film-altering feat. Therefore, based on that timing factor alone, we can have all the confidence in the world that the film was most certainly NOT altered.

REPLAY....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front?

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

Yes I do think that. It's not the big deal you make it out to be. Bright college students could do it.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, brother.

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

One has to be a real chump to believe all the lies the public has been fed regarding the JFK assassination. Just like the public was lied to about Viet Nam, 9/11 and Iraq, Iran-Contra, U.S meddling in other countries, assassinations, and coups.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But you've got to be an even bigger chump to believe that the Zapruder Film was altered (with lightning-like speed AND with Mr. Zapruder practically hovering over the film-fakers every step of the way), as well as believing all (or certainly most) of the autopsy photos AND X-rays were faked and altered by conspirators too (despite the fact the HSCA determined just exactly the opposite).

David, show me where I can observe the original Zapruder film, the one that Zapruder had on 11/23/63. One that hasn't been in the hands of the Secret Service, the FBI, or Life magazine. I want to compare that to the one(s) CTers say have been altered, to determine if they really have been.

I eagerly await your response.

If you (or anyone else) can't find that original film, that means that there WAS indeed plenty of time for alterations to be made to the film(s) we all see today.

(Above I put in parentheses the letter "s" after the words "one" and "film" because I don't know if what we see today came from only one of the original copies, or two, or even three . All I know is that I've seen various versions at YouTube that aren't identical. Some are B&W, others color. Some are grainy, others clear. Some are jerking, others stable.)

Edited December 13, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

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 Dealey plaza witnesses, like the Newmans, thought they saw blood gushing from the side of Kennedy's head. But what they actually saw was 1) back splatter from the temple-area entrance wound; 2) immediately followed by blood gushing from the exit wound at the right-rear of the head, which at this time was what the witnesses were looking at. Because, when Kennedy was shot in the temple, his head immediately turned to his left so he was facing Jackie. It happened so fast, and there was so much blood, that they didn't realize they were looking at the back of Kennedy's head, not the side.

Look at the Z film frame-by-frame to confirm this, begining at 313, which is when the bullet struck. By frame 316 the back of the head was where the side of the head had been when the bullet struck only 166 milliseconds earlier.

This is what I believe explains the discrepancy between the Dealey Plaza witnesses and all the medical professionals at Parkland.

LNers like to say that the Parkland doctors didn't have time to see where the wound was. Well, they had a hell of a lot more time than the Dealey Plaza witnesses did.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Ramon F. Herrera]

It's really neat that Dave got another doctor to go along with his compelling evidence on the x rays.

[...]

It's not a point of whether or not the back of the head is intact.

It's whether or not the x rays have been altered by being deliberately over exposed.

Hi Jim:

Working in that direction, I applied for membership to all the related LinkedIn Forums (CT+MRI Imaging, Radiology, etc.) that I could find, and as luck would have it, some accepted my application:

Now, one thing is to be able to post, and quite another to actually receive useful replies. I was telling Pat Speer that this must have been my lucky day: In my first attempt, a very collaborative doctor (Roman Marin, Radiologist, MRI Department, Donetsk General Hospital, Donetsk, Ukraine ... where they have wars and lots of heads and bodies perforated by bullets....) gave me some interesting opinions. But I really don't have the time to get into it at this point. Read on ...

One of my objectives is to guide Samuel Patmore, a 3D modeler who I hired to carve a rough hole in a pristine cranium that I provided.

https://www.freelancer.com/u/samuelpatmore.html

Samuel traveled last week to his alma mater (University of Kent) until today.

This is what he has so far:

Isometric to 3D Projection

https://goo.gl/cZ7Axr (Click inside "3D Models" subfolders)

-Ramon

ps: Funny anecdote. Samuel dutifully made 3D versions of the images that I have in my Google Drive (or as I call it: poor man's web site) and I told him:

Ramon: "Samuel, let's forget about 'Third Attempt, Frontal Right.png' - We are not modeling that one"

Samuel: "How come?"

Ramon: "Because the defect was done by an utterly unqualified, clueless person."

Samuel: "Really?, who is that?"

Ramon: "That would be Yours Truly".

Edited December 13, 2015 by Ramon F. Herrera

[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.

[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)

[Greg Burnham]

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.

[Graphics omitted as unnecessary]

So your qualifications are so lacking that the National Archives won't even let you in to examine the materials. Yet we are to take your word for it? And as for anatomy, who should I trust more: a RADIOLOGIST or a music man?

I sure hope the view is good from the cheap seats, Pat.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Jon G. Tidd]

Z-335 defies explanation. Taken at face value (no pun intended), it depicts as covered by whiteness the front and right side of JFK's skull. Assuming the whiteness is not an artefact and is not some photographic defect, it represents some physical change to the outer aspect to JFK's skull, which does not appear in any of the witness statements or in any of the autopsy photos.

I say the whiteness was added (crudely) by a forger.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[David Von Pein]

I've seen various versions [of the Z-Film] at YouTube that aren't identical. Some are B&W, others color. Some are grainy, others clear. Some are jerking, others stable.)

And you actually think ANY of those things indicate the possibility of FAKERY or ALTERATION by conspirators?

Geez.

Edited December 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Greg Burnham]

See this link:

A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs by Michael Chesser, MD

[Cliff Varnell]

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

[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. The darkest areas on Kennedy's x-ray, moreover, represent areas in which bone is missing on the right side. So, there's a three to one ratio in place on Kennedy's x-rays, that presumably did not exist on the control x-rays tested by Mantik. (Mantik got these x-rays from Doug DeSalles. DeSalles told me these x-rays were normal skull x-rays and not x-rays reflecting extensive trauma to the skull.)

The biggest problem, however, is that Mantik never performed any controls using the equipment used during the autopsy. In his online response to my comments, Mantik goes on about how my assertion the age of the x-ray equipment had an impact on the image is an insult to General Electric. This was pretty funny, in retrospect. I came across an old GE instruction manual at a swap meet, and it specifies how to use their equipment. And it's not a matter of pushing a button. You have to determine the power of the x-ray, and the length of the exposure. By adjusting these two factors one can create a wide variety of images of the same object, from nearly all black to nearly all white. This is demonstrated here:

In any event, while reading about x-rays I came across a number of references to devices created post WWII (some by the Clark Panel's Russell Morgan) which simplified the process tremendously. While radiology techs using the old equipment were accustomed to creating a couple of test x-rays before finally getting one they could use, the latter equipment--the equipment Mantik is presumably familiar with--will create a decent image right off the bat.

I mean, really. Ebersole, Reed and Custer--the men who worked with that old x-ray machine--said they were x-rays they'd created once shown the originals. That oughta seal the deal, in my book. But no, when it comes to the x-rays, the research community completely abandons its supposed belief witnesses trump experts, and throws all the witnesses under the bus to support Mantik. I just don't get it, and am tired of whining about it.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

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.

[Graphics omitted as unnecessary]

So your qualifications are so lacking that the National Archives won't even let you in to examine the materials. Yet we are to take your word for it? And as for anatomy, who should I trust more: a RADIOLOGIST or a music man?

I sure hope the view is good from the cheap seats, Pat.

That's pretty pathetic, Greg. Where have I ever said anyone should take my word on any of this? As far as anatomy...don't trust me...but don't trust Mantik, either. Angel was a forensic anthropologist, and Riley is a neuroanatomist. If one is to go with the experts, as you suggest, one should go with them. Well, they both, operating separately and decades apart, concluded the Harper fragment was parietal, not occipital.

So why don't you? Oh yeah, they aren't your buddies.

P.S. here's a 3d animation showing the internal aspect of the occipital bone. Note the elevated ridge down the middle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_close-up_superior_animation.gif

And here's another look at the the Harper fragment. It's night and day, Greg.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Greg Burnham]

So why don't you? Oh yeah, they aren't your buddies.

The reason I pointed out my friendship with David had only to do with the amount of time we have spent talking about this. I am suggesting that you may not be as familiar with his POV as you think you are because much of what you say is a misrepresentation of his position.

It's okay. He was recently published in a peer reviewed journal. They seem to understand what he was demonstrating.

BTW: This thread is NOT about the Harper Fragment. It is about the JFK cranial optical densitometry measurements taken on pre-mortem x-Rays at the JFK Library vs. the JFK cranial optical densitometry measurements taken from the post-mortem x-Rays taken for autopsy and 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.

[Sandy Larsen]

I've seen various versions [of the Z-Film] at YouTube that aren't identical. Some are B&W, others color. Some are grainy, others clear. Some are jerking, others stable.)

And you actually think ANY of those things indicate the possibility of FAKERY or ALTERATION by conspirators?

Geez.

In that paragraph I was pointing out the reason I put "(s)" at the end of "film." It was because I'm not aware of how many of the 3 copies of the Z film are circulating, and so I didn't know if I should refer to what we see as singular or plural. Then I said, the only thing I know is that some see are B&W, some are color, etc. They may all be from the same copy for all I know. I've always assumed they are. Nothing about them indicates alteration to me, other than incidental changes that occur when making a copy of a film, or stabilizing it, etc.