David Mantik Responds to Pat Speer

[Greg Burnham]

Hey Bob,

I agree with you in principle. I also like the word you chose: Forced. Indeed, let's not forget that Mantik's critics are quick to point out, although it is irrelevant, that David is not a diagnostic radiologist.* -- Yet when I point out that Pat Speer lacks any credentials or experience in these fields I am accused of unfairly dismissing his views.

* The critics allude to this lack of a specific credential as somehow negatively impacting Mantik's ability to properly interpret x-rays, but never explain how, notwithstanding his related qualifications as a physicist, a Board Certified Radiation Oncologist, and a practicing medical doctor with many decades of experience reading and interpreting x-rays.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hey Bob,

I agree with you in principle. I also like the word you chose: Forced. Indeed, let's not forget that Mantik's critics are quick to point out, although it is irrelevant, that David is not a diagnostic radiologist.* -- Yet when I point out that Pat Speer lacks any credentials or experience in these fields I am accused of unfairly dismissing his views.

* The critics allude to this lack of a specific credential as somehow negatively impacting Mantik's ability to properly interpret x-rays, but never explain how, notwithstanding his related qualifications as a physicist, a Board Certified Radiation Oncologist, and a practicing medical doctor with many decades of experience reading and interpreting x-rays.

Quite frankly, Greg, I find it rather amusing, as it is all they have to work with.

[Jon G. Tidd]

The work of Chesser and Mantik on the skull x-rays gets to the point unlike some other efforts in the JFK arena, Their work is persuasive as to a cover-up rooted in high levels of power.

It's a shame such fundamentally important and persuasive work isn't ranked in order of importance.

If such a ranking existed, I'd put Chesser's and Mantik's work near or at the top. By way of perspective, I'd place Talbot's "Devil's Chessboard" quite lower in rank of importance.

[Greg Burnham]

I agree, Jon. However, I do not disparage the work contained in Talbot's book. That's not the reason why I don't place it as high on the list. The difference is that Talbot's focus is on reporting political / historical information that is potentially subject to at least some bias (even if he is correct).

The work of Mantik (and now Chesser) is based on hard, and some would say "cold," scientific DATA.

For instance, one cannot say with certainty that if Dulles betrayed JFK at the BOP, and JFK fired Dulles for it, then Dulles plotted the assassination. -- In other words it is not an exact science.

But, one can say with certainty, that: 4.52658 + 7.21479 = 11.74137 -- In other words it is an exact science that is replicable provided that those conducting the experiments and taking the measurements are themselves competent and commit no errors. Indeed that is the very reason for others to make a good faith attempt at replication. It would verify or refute the findings. That a qualified, Board Certified Neurologist (Chesser) did, in fact, replicate the findings of Mantik serves to verify Mantik's conclusions unless or until other qualified individuals (at least one) attempt replication and discover errors.

[Greg Burnham]

From Millicent Cranor:

Greg, here is my response to the comment you sent me by Pat Speer:

Pat Speer said:

"Mantik came out with his findings over 20 years ago now, and not one forensic radiologist has come forward to offer him support. Now why is that?"

Not one forensic radiologist has come forward to REBUT Mantik's findings either. Now why is that?

Rebuttal of conspiracy theorists -- whether valid or not -- is always encouraged, even rewarded, by the establishment. As most of us know, the opposite is true of those who support it.

I know of three diagnostic radiologists who find much of Mantik's work persuasive - but they would never go public on such a touchy subject. By "touchy subject" I mean the alteration of X-rays.

This is far more threatening to the Bad Guys than research disproving the Lone Nut Theory.

Consider the purpose of the Lone Nut scenario: surely it is to deflect attention away from the real culprits.

This deflection is now being accomplished by seemingly credible alternate scenarios that embrace conspiracy - but none likely to lead back to those responsible.

Milicent Cranor

Edited December 27, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Pat Speer]

A couple of points.

1. I do not dispute Chesser or Mantik's data, Greg. Never have. They have found some anomalies in the OD data. They have done nothing, however, to show that this couldn't have an innocent explanation. I have presented quotes from a number of sources proving that there was more to creating x-rays on those old machines than flipping one dial in accordance with a chart. And I have also proved that the men who created the x-rays recognized the x-rays as x-rays they created, and that a forensic radiologist contacted by the ARRB said the white patch had an innocent explanation. So, no, I'm under no obligation to perform any tests, etc. Imagine someone studying an old black and white photo, and claiming the white object in the photo was much whiter than other photos of the same thing, and that it must have been tampered with. And then someone comes along and says 'Uhh, did you ever take pictures with that kind of camera, using that kind of film, to see if there was a setting at which the object would appear that white?" To which the first guy responds "No" and then says "How dare you insult the inventors of the Kodak by implying their camera could turn out such a photo?" Oh, whatever. I know it's lost in you.

2. Your friend, Dr. Livingston, said macerated cerebrum could be mistaken for cerebellum, but that he didn't believe veteran doctors would make such a mistake. Well, guess what? Carrico and Jenkins, said "Yep, I guess I mistook macerated cerebrum for cerebellum." And Baxter and Perry, if I recall, denied ever seeing any. So, no, it's not a slam dunk case by any means, particularly when one takes into account where some of these witnesses said they saw the hole on the skull. Peters, for example, claimed he saw cerebellum down at the bottom of the skull when he looked down into the skull from above. IOW, he claimed the skull defect was at the top of the back of the skull and not low on the back of the skull between the ears. So, yeah, the "cerebellum story" offers only marginal support for Mantik's claims about the Harper fragment's being occipital bone and the OD readings' proving the occipital bone was missing.

3. My disagreement with Mantik's conclusions is as much my disagreement with how people continuously latch onto and misrepresent his conclusions, as my disagreements with his actual conclusions. For years we were told that Mantik discovered a white patch on the back of the head on the x-ray that covered up a large defect from which the Harper fragment had been dislodged. I took a look at this white patch and realized it did not match up to where Mantik claimed the Harper fragment had been. Mantik's attack dog Fetzer confonted him on this and he agreed...with me. As a consequence Mantik now openly admits that he places the Harper fragment on the far back of the head on the lateral x-ray, and that this location does not correspond to the white patch.

But he'd actually been saying this for a long time. To wit, in a discussion filmed in 2002, he claimed that the Harper fragment was missing from the back of the skull on the x-ray, but that "The human eye is not sensitive enough to pick up that difference in bone density from a place where it's partly missing here, and a place where it's entirely present. The human eye just can't do that job...And that has misled a lot of people...Your eye just can't make that decision. It's not that discriminating."

And this wasn't a one-time mis-statement on his part. In 2014, at the Bethesda conference, he claimed: "If you place the Harper fragment in this occipital area, you'll find that it overlays the very back of the lateral skull x-ray...It's not possible for a human eye to see absent bone in that location. You shouldn't expect to. You should not expect to see missing occipital bone on these x-rays...where I've placed it. You simply cannot determine that. But you can with optical density data, which I took."

Well, this puts Mantik's supporters in a pickle, now, doesn't it? They want to believe the x-rays are either fake, or that they were altered to hide a defect on the back of the skull, and Mantik, with all those letters after his name, keeps telling them that the x-rays are post-mortem x-rays of Kennedy, and not only unaltered at the back of the head in the occipital area, but proof bone was missing in this area. Now, how many of those claiming to support Mantik really believe this? A small minority, in my opinion. I most certainly have never seen anyone besides Mantik actually argue that the lateral x-rays prove the back of the head was blown out.

And for good reason. Mantik's explanation for this is just incredible. Apparently confusing the claims of others that a small round hole on the back of the head would not be apparent on a lateral x-ray, he has taken to claiming the absence of the Harper fragment--a 2 1/2 in triangular bone fragment which, in Mantik's orientation, represents a good percentage of the bone across the back of the head (and nearly all the bone across the back of the head at its lowest point down by the EOP)--would not be observable to the human eye when studying the lateral x-rays, and would only be observable via his OD measurements. Well, this is ridiculous. A fracture at the side and back of the skull is observable on lateral x-rays, and 2 1/2 inches of missing bone would be even more readily observable. Here are a couple of examples, readily found on the internet....

Edited December 29, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Greg Burnham]

Pat:

Either you didn't read David's response or you read it and are deliberately ignoring his response. This is misleading to those reading the thread.

Let me ask, why does the left lambdoid suture abruptly terminate 2 to 3 cm to the left of the midline? Dr. Chesser confirmed Dr. Mantik's description of the left lambdoid suture, and this is just one additional finding to support an occipital skull defect extending to the left of the midline.

[Greg Burnham]

Moreover, Speer's examples (of two X-rays) are irrelevant. Mantik already discussed (and demonstrated) this issue in his e-book, to wit: On the JFK lateral skull X-ray, the frontal bone appears to be intact, but on the AP skull X-ray, it is clearly not intact (much of the right side is missing). Therefore, as David has repeatedly said time and again: on a single X-ray, the human eye is not sensitive enough to discern how much bone is missing.

So QED--directly from the X-rays in question!

Edited December 29, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Pat Speer]

Moreover, Speer's examples (of two X-rays) are irrelevant. Mantik already discussed (and demonstrated) this issue in his e-book, to wit: On the JFK lateral skull X-ray, the frontal bone appears to be intact, but on the AP skull X-ray, it is clearly not intact (much of the right side is missing). Therefore, as David has repeatedly said time and again: on a single X-ray, the human eye is not sensitive enough to discern how much bone is missing.

So QED--directly from the X-rays in question!

1. What? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Part of the frontal bone appears to be missing on both the lateral and A-P x-rays.

2. You have it backwards anyway. The question is not whether missing or macerated brain can create a dark area on an x-ray, and give the illusion bone is missing, but whether having a large piece of bone missing from the back of the head would be observable to the human eye. The answer is yes.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Greg Burnham]

1. What? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Part of the frontal bone appears to be missing on both the lateral and A-P x-rays.

2. You have it backwards anyway. The question is not whether missing or macerated brain can create a dark area on an x-ray, and give the illusion bone is missing, but whether having a large piece of bone missing from the back of the head would be observable to the human eye. The answer is yes.

You obviously don't know what I'm talking about as evidenced by your lack of cogent replies. You don't appear to have even read this portion of David's eBook, including illustrations, where he discusses it. I do not believe this is an intellectually honest approach. If you have, in fact, read the eBook, then I can only conclude you are deliberately ignoring what David presents as it is damning to your position, you have closed your mind, or you simply don't have the ability to comprehend it.

[Pat Speer]

1. What? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Part of the frontal bone appears to be missing on both the lateral and A-P x-rays.

2. You have it backwards anyway. The question is not whether missing or macerated brain can create a dark area on an x-ray, and give the illusion bone is missing, but whether having a large piece of bone missing from the back of the head would be observable to the human eye. The answer is yes.

You obviously don't know what I'm talking about as evidenced by your lack of cogent replies. You don't appear to have even read this portion of David's eBook, including illustrations, where he discusses it. I do not believe this is an intellectually honest approach. If you have, in fact, read the eBook, then I can only conclude you are deliberately ignoring what David presents as it is damning to your position, you have closed your mind, or you simply don't have the ability to comprehend it.

Nice try, Greg. I saw David in Dallas and his appearance offered nothing new beyond what I'd already watched him discuss in Pittsburgh in 2013, and Dallas in 2009. In fact, it was all pretty much a rehash of his 2003 article 20 Conclusions After 9 Visits.

The reality is this: the whiteness of a skull x-ray reflects the cumulative density of the brain and bone through to the other side of the skull. As a result, an area where bone is intact, but where there is missing or severely macerated brain, may appear dark on the x-ray, and suggest there is missing bone. But you can't flip this around. If there is in fact missing skull in an area of the skull which is normally white, this won't escape detection due to their being an inordinate amount of brain in the area. It just doesn't work that way.

When one reads and actually comprehends David's interpretation of the x-rays, moreover, one is struck by the fact that he claims to see a tiny piece of metal at the back of Kennedy's head on the x-ray, just above where he claims a 2 1/2 inch triangular piece of bone is missing from the back of the head. Well, this makes it really difficult, no, scratch that, impossible, to understand how he can turn around and claim the absence of this bone is imperceptible to the human eye.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Greg Burnham]

Thank you Doctor Speer. I will consult you the next time I need a possible bone fracture diagnosed.

[Greg Burnham]

It is very obvious that you have not read David's e-book or you are ignoring those sections for which you have no answer.