James DiEugenio Posted November 8, 2020 Share Posted November 8, 2020 (edited) Dave Mantik ended up being kind of upset with me after he finished this review. He said something like, Jim, reviewing a good book is one thing, but this was nothing but rubbish. The only good thing about it, is I can point the reader to the places he should be examining that LItwin ignores. And boy does Litwin ignore a lot. Its really something that for a recent book he decided to make his argument by relying largely on the HSCA. And ignoring the ARRB declassified records of that body. He even mentioned Guinn, but then retracted it. Why mention Guinn at all? Anyway, there are very few people who are as good on the technical side as Dave Mantik. Which is why I asked him to do this one. There is an attachment to my review of the Jim Garrison side of the book. Litwin was so stung by that one, he wrote a whole book on the subject in reply. And before anyone asks, yes I will be reviewing that.Talk about a glutton for punishment. IMO, this is one of the best reviews K and K has published. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/i-was-not-a-teenage-jfk-conspiracy-freak Edited November 8, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted November 8, 2020 Share Posted November 8, 2020 This review would've been better if Mantik just stuck to the ballistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 Dr. Mantik is very thorough in explaining his dissection. Kudos to him for exposing disinformation. Current and future generations deserve to be able to find at least some Truth if they look. Thank you Sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 9, 2020 Author Share Posted November 9, 2020 Thanks Ron. Micah, Dave is a radiologist. IMO, that exhibit near the end that he got from Chesser is state of the art. I mean everyone should look at that. And I think this is the first time it appears in the literature. Its radiological evidence that indicates Kennedy was hit with a shot from the front. Dave's articles are not easy to do for our web master, but exhibits like that one are worth the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted November 9, 2020 Share Posted November 9, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said: Thanks Ron. Micah, Dave is a radiologist. IMO, that exhibit near the end that he got from Chesser is state of the art. I mean everyone should look at that. And I think this is the first time it appears in the literature. Its radiological evidence that indicates Kennedy was hit with a shot from the front. Dave's articles are not easy to do for our web master, but exhibits like that one are worth the work. Has any medical professional confirmed whether the dark trail on the x-ray of the left side of the head represents a skull fracture or disrupted brain tissue? If it means missing tissue, that means big trouble for the brain photos which show no damage on the outer left side. And it could all but confirm a small hole in the left temple. On the anniversary, I will have a 100 page megapost on the left and right temple wounds. Edited November 9, 2020 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 10, 2020 Author Share Posted November 10, 2020 I am not sure about that one. And I look forward to that essay. And yes the intact cerebrum part of the brain is a huge problem. Maybe you should ask Dave or Randy Robertson about that. But what is so interesting about what Chesser found is that the source material is not from a JFK related text. Which is always good. I have to say though, Howard Roffman first approached this phenomenon of the dust like particles in the front of the brain many years ago in his book Presumed Guilty. Except he only took it so far i.e. that it indicated a hunting round and not a FMJ style bullet. But what Chesser is saying goes even further. What is so funny about Litwin is that he says the autopsy is one of his favorite subjects in the case. He does not realize what a land mine it is for him. And he walks right into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 The EOP is where the cerebellum meets the occipital lobe. The brain photos don't show any severe damage to the back of the brain. the HSCA medical panel pointed out the obvious: the brain photos are incompatible with a 6.5 round from the Sixth Floor entering near the EOP. So either the EOP wound did exist and there was some kind of conspiracy, or the EOP wound didn't exist and at least 10 witnesses must be ignored (Humes, Boswell, Finck, Burkley, Kellerman, Stringer, Lipsey, Boyers, Robinson, Grossman) and possibly some physical evidence as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Lowe Posted November 10, 2020 Share Posted November 10, 2020 On 11/8/2020 at 1:28 PM, James DiEugenio said: Dave Mantik ended up being kind of upset with me after he finished this review. He said something like, Jim, reviewing a good book is one thing, but this was nothing but rubbish. The only good thing about it, is I can point the reader to the places he should be examining that LItwin ignores. And boy does Litwin ignore a lot. Its really something that for a recent book he decided to make his argument by relying largely on the HSCA. And ignoring the ARRB declassified records of that body. He even mentioned Guinn, but then retracted it. Why mention Guinn at all? Anyway, there are very few people who are as good on the technical side as Dave Mantik. Which is why I asked him to do this one. There is an attachment to my review of the Jim Garrison side of the book. Litwin was so stung by that one, he wrote a whole book on the subject in reply. And before anyone asks, yes I will be reviewing that.Talk about a glutton for punishment. IMO, this is one of the best reviews K and K has published. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/i-was-not-a-teenage-jfk-conspiracy-freak very interesting article, Jim, but do you agree with Mantik that the Zapruder film was altered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 11, 2020 Author Share Posted November 11, 2020 I am an agnostic on that one. But I have seen the Wilkinson work on this and its quite interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 There is so much more photographic evidence for dark shadows on the back of JFK's head, it just "seems" natural that the Zapruder film would show such dark shadows. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a pure coincidence, either - a multiple shooter conspiracy may take advantage of which direction the sun in shining (even if the Secret Service agents were all wearing sunglasses). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 12, 2020 Author Share Posted November 12, 2020 I am pretty sure that Dave Mantik will be on Black Op Radio this Thursday to talk about this critique of Litwin. Tune it, it should be fun. I am supposed to debate Litwin later. Will keep you informed if Fred does not back out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph McBride Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 (edited) Doug Horne proved the Zapruder film was altered (see his Vol. 4); what he learned backs up eyewitness testimony and other evidence. Sydney Wilkinson's work furthers that research -- she shows that you can clearly see the trapezoidal shape of the matte painting on the back of JFK's head. The extant Z film is a crude cartoon. Jim, why do you have any doubts on that score? Edited November 13, 2020 by Joseph McBride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T. Patrick Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 Those who would like to hear Doug explain it for three hours and 26 minutes, it's here: https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ You have to scroll down past the pictures, but take a look at them first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted November 13, 2020 Share Posted November 13, 2020 (edited) I've not read the works of Dr. Mantik or Doug Horne in the depth of others here. But from what I have read of them, in conjunction with that of Dr. Michael Chesser, evidence of a frontal shot is conclusive. With witness statements about a knoll shot and back and to the left it seems over whelming proof of a conspiracy. Regarding Z film alteration I believe the work of David Joseph here and on Kennedy's and King and Chris Davidson here support what I have read of Horne. For starters the wide swing from Houston onto Elm was eliminated for some reason. Then there's the limo stop, or almost, but not in Z. Edited November 13, 2020 by Ron Bulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted November 13, 2020 Author Share Posted November 13, 2020 (edited) What I think is so important about Dave's reply is the x ray he got from Chesser. He puts it up near the end. It is Appendix 4. That is really good evidence that there was a frontal shot to JFK. David Mantik will be on Len's show next week. Will keep you informed about Litwin and me. Edited November 13, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now