JFK: Destiny Betrayed

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Anthony.  Look forward to it.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/10/2021 at 7:56 PM, Ron Bulman said:

The stardust trail, front to back, by Mantick/Chesser/Horne is a True key to the mystery that should be understood by all interested.

I don't understand why the head x-ray is treated as though it is authentic.

Consider that reportedly there was almost no brain left, and yet the stardust trail can be seen in the x-ray. Were the particles floating in mid-air?

And what about the blowout wound in the back of the head? The x-ray shows no missing bone in the back. I asked Dr. Mantik about this a few years ago and his reply was that the blowout was on the top-right of the head, i.e. the official story.

The position taken in Through the Looking Glass is that there was a gaping hole in the back of the head. (I don't recall if it states that most of the brain was gone.)

Can somebody explain to me how a person (or documentary) can logically believe that the head x-ray is authentic, and at the same time believe that the gaping hole was in the back where the x-ray shows no hole?

 

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't understand why the head x-ray is treated as though it is authentic.

Consider that reportedly there was almost no brain left, and yet the stardust trail can be seen in the x-ray. Were the particles floating in mid-air?

And what about the blowout wound in the back of the head? The x-ray shows no missing bone in the back. I asked Dr. Mantik about this a few years ago and his reply was that the blowout was on the top-right of the head, i.e. the official story.

The position taken in Through the Looking Glass is that there was a gaping hole in the back of the head. (I don't recall if it states that most of the brain was gone.)

Can somebody explain to me how a person (or documentary) can logically believe that the head x-ray is authentic, and at the same time believe that the gaping hole was in the back where the x-ray shows no hole?

 

This is a deep subject and my memory is subject to malfunction.  However, I believe Doug Horne between the ARRB, Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik has answered your question.  Again, from memory, there ware only 3 of 5 (?) x-ray's given to the National Archives left in existence.  The other  - two - have disappeared.  According to the X-ray technician he took more than 5 or so, not just the head.

So it's not a stretch to say the x-ray's in existence could have been tampered with.  Horne explains how.  With supporting evidence and the analysis of experts in their fields.  The blowout in the back was eliminated, the stardust trail remained.  Along with the entry wounds, from the front.  

[Sandy Larsen]

32 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

This is a deep subject and my memory is subject to malfunction.  However, I believe Doug Horne between the ARRB, Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik has answered your question.  Again, from memory, there ware only 3 of 5 (?) x-ray's given to the National Archives left in existence.  The other  - two - have disappeared.  According to the X-ray technician he took more than 5 or so, not just the head.

So it's not a stretch to say the x-ray's in existence could have been tampered with.  Horne explains how.  With supporting evidence and the analysis of experts in their fields.  The blowout in the back was eliminated, the stardust trail remained.  Along with the entry wounds, from the front.  

Ron,

Thanks for replying to my post.

I found your comment on Doug Horne most helpful. Because I happen to remember that he is a firm believer in the rear-of-the-head gaping wound. And from what you said about him, I knew I could get the answer to my question if only I could find what he had to say about the head x-rays.

The best I could find was this quote of Horne on Spartacus Educational:

Quote

Doug Horne, in an interview with Len Osanic, said:

"I do believe that the head x-rays in the Archives are forged composite copy films, based upon the work of Dr. David Mantik. They are copy films showing altered images of JFK's actual skull, which hide the blowout in the back of the head (in the 2 lateral x-rays), and show a large, prominent 6.5 mm-diameter metal bullet fragment in the A-P x-ray (deigned to implicate Oswald)."

So Horne believes that the blowout wound was photographically removed from the back of the head. That possibility didn't occur to me because, while I've read and heard a lot about anomalies in the head x-rays,  I've never heard a thing about the missing hole on the back of the head.

Thank goodness for that hypothesis. Because earlier I feared that there was in inconsistency in the documentary, and now I see that there isn't.  🙂

[James DiEugenio]

Mantik replies:

"The first two images are sketches of where the Harper Fragment originated.

 

The third one (of the AP X-ray) show actual dark spots due to the missing Harper Fragment.

 

Because of the overlying bone, however, you cannot see the entire dark area as one uninterrupted site.

 

Next, see the second attachment. 

 

In addition, and even more powerfully, however, I measured the area of the missing Harper Fragment on the lateral skull X-ray--via optical density data. ODs were measured throughout the red area (in the first image), which showed conclusively where the hole was. "

[James DiEugenio]

We decided not to get into this.

Its not an easy subject to make understandable to a general audience.

I am just glad we got the Stringer testimony in. When someone says I did not use that film, that is easy to understand.

[James DiEugenio]

More good news.

Oliver was talking to Glenn Greenwald.

Glenn  loved the film.  He is tweeting about it now.

The guy has 1. 7 million twitter followers.

Between him and Rogan millions will get the message this week.

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mantik replies:

"The first two images are sketches of where the Harper Fragment originated.

 

The third one (of the AP X-ray) show actual dark spots due to the missing Harper Fragment.

 

Because of the overlying bone, however, you cannot see the entire dark area as one uninterrupted site.

 

Next, see the second attachment. 

 

In addition, and even more powerfully, however, I measured the area of the missing Harper Fragment on the lateral skull X-ray--via optical density data. ODs were measured throughout the red area (in the first image), which showed conclusively where the hole was. "

Thanks Jim.

I need to correct something I said in my earlier post. I said that Dr. Mantik believes the blowout wound is at the top of the head. Well, I went through my e-mail exchange with him and found that he also believes that there is a hole in the back of the head as well.

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't understand why the head x-ray is treated as though it is authentic.

Consider that reportedly there was almost no brain left, and yet the stardust trail can be seen in the x-ray. Were the particles floating in mid-air?

And what about the blowout wound in the back of the head? The x-ray shows no missing bone in the back. I asked Dr. Mantik about this a few years ago and his reply was that the blowout was on the top-right of the head, i.e. the official story.

The position taken in Through the Looking Glass is that there was a gaping hole in the back of the head. (I don't recall if it states that most of the brain was gone.)

Can somebody explain to me how a person (or documentary) can logically believe that the head x-ray is authentic, and at the same time believe that the gaping hole was in the back where the x-ray shows no hole?

 

This is one of the problems I've had with Mantik. He's changed his opinions a number of times without admitting he's changed his opinion. He originally told the CT community the so-called white spot covered up the hole from which the Harper fragment derived. This was the right side of the head behind the ear. He then came to believe the Harper fragment derived from the FAR back of the head, the middle of the back of the head. So he switched to saying that the white spot covered an area of missing brain, not skull, and that you couldn't see the hole on the FAR back of the head on the x-rays, the middle of the back of the head, with the naked eye, and that only he can see it with his superior vision and optical density readings.

To be clear, then, the alterations Mantik proposes occurred to the x-rays involved placing a white patch on the side of the head to hide missing brain and draw attention to the dark area in front, and placing a white circle on the frontal x-ray to suggest a 6.5 mm fragment was found at the back of the head.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks Jim.

I need to correct something I said in my earlier post. I said that Dr. Mantik believes the blowout wound is at the top of the head. Well, I went through my e-mail exchange with him and found that he also believes that there is a hole in the back of the head as well.

Can you provide the exact quotes? That might prove helpful. Thanks.

[Chuck Schwartz]

This is an interview with Dr. Mankik...https://throughtheoswaldwindow.com/articles/dr-david-mantik/

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/15/2021 at 4:38 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

... Dr. Mantik believes the blowout wound is at the top of the head. ... he also believes that there is a hole in the back of the head.

 

On 12/15/2021 at 6:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

Can you provide the exact quotes? That might prove helpful. Thanks.

 

Pat,

I will extract pertinent sentences from mine and David Mantik's e-mail conversation and paste them here for you to read. Because it is difficult to understand exactly what David is saying sometimes and maybe you'll have better luck than me. I've embedded my comments and interpretation in square brackets.

 

Sandy:  You say that the 10 x 6.5 cm fragment that was brought in late [to the autopsy] was probably frontal bone. How is it possible that frontal bone escaped through Kennedy's intact frontal scalp?

Or do you believe that there was a second large wound on the top of the head? [I meant SCALP wound. With the first scalp wound being at the back. However, David thought I meant SKULL holes.]

David:  No second [skull] hole--just one large one. The scalp covered the majority of this large hole.

[At this point I thought he was agreeing with the blowout-wound-on-top-of-the-head concept, rather than on the back of the head. Because, how could the large frontal fragment have escaped through a back-of-head scalp hole?]

Sandy:  I don't understand. With the scalp covering the fragmented bone on the top of the skull, and with only a large hole in the scalp on the back of the head [which is what I believe, and I figured he would object to this], how could the frontal bone escape? It seems to me to have been well contained.

David:  But the scalp was not intact--and there really is no other place to put that [very large] triangular fragment [that was brought in late].

[He certainly didn't answer my question directly. I figured that what he was saying is that 1) the only place the very large triangular fragment could fit is in the frontal bone area. And therefore 2) that is where the big hole in the scalp must be, in order for that large fragment to pop out.]

[So far it certainly does seem that David is a top-of-head blowout guy. But then he said:]

David:  Also see Boswell's autopsy sketch for missing skull bone, which is consistent with this.

It seems to me that Boswell's sketch is what was seen once the scalp was reflected and all the (trapped) skull fragments removed. This understanding of the sketch is consistent with what the Parkland witnesses saw.

[Wait a second... isn't David now saying that the scalp hole on the top of the head wasn't there till Humes reflected the scalp, thus exposing all the fragments?? But that large triangular fragment was brought in late. It couldn't have fallen off the skull at the autopsy.]

 

I was so confused at that point that I kind of gave up on my conversation with David. I was mentally exhausted due to that and my medical condition.

But when I went back through the e-mails the other day, I noticed an attachment sent by David that I hadn't noticed before. In it are facts on the Harper fragment. And there I discovered that he does believe that the Harper fragment is from the occipital bone. (BTW he prepared that document specifically for me, which is very kind of him. I feel bad for not thanking him profusely for that.)

Naturally I wanted to see how he squared that up with the x-ray that seemingly has all the occipital fragments in place. And so I located his e-book and what I found is that he claims he was able to measure with his densitometer a missing fragment about the size of the Harper fragment.

So David doesn't think that film alteration was used to hide the Harper fragment hole.

 

[Pat Speer]

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

Pat,

I will extract pertinent sentences from mine and David Mantik's e-mail conversation and paste them here for you to read. Because it is difficult to understand exactly what David is saying sometimes and maybe you'll have better luck than me. I've embedded my comments and interpretation in square brackets.

 

Sandy:  You say that the 10 x 6.5 cm fragment that was brought in late [to the autopsy] was probably frontal bone. How is it possible that frontal bone escaped through Kennedy's intact frontal scalp?

Or do you believe that there was a second large wound on the top of the head? [I meant SCALP wound. With the first scalp wound being at the back. However, David thought I meant SKULL holes.]

David:  No second [skull] hole--just one large one. The scalp covered the majority of this large hole.

[At this point I thought he was agreeing with the blowout-wound-on-top-of-the-head concept, rather than on the back of the head. Because, how could the large frontal fragment have escaped through a back-of-head scalp hole?]

Sandy:  I don't understand. With the scalp covering the fragmented bone on the top of the skull, and with only a large hole in the scalp on the back of the head [which is what I believe, and I figured he would object to this], how could the frontal bone escape? It seems to me to have been well contained.

David:  But the scalp was not intact--and there really is no other place to put that [very large] triangular fragment [that was brought in late].

[He certainly didn't answer my question directly. I figured that what he was saying is that 1) the only place the very large triangular fragment could fit is in the frontal bone area. And therefore 2) that is where the big hole in the scalp must be, in order for that large fragment to pop out.]

[So far it certainly does seem that David is a top-of-head blowout guy. But then he said:]

David:  Also see Boswell's autopsy sketch for missing skull bone, which is consistent with this.

It seems to me that Boswell's sketch is what was seen once the scalp was reflected and all the (trapped) skull fragments removed. This understanding of the sketch is consistent with what the Parkland witnesses saw.

[Wait a second... isn't David now saying that the scalp hole on the top of the head wasn't there till Humes reflected the scalp, thus exposing all the fragments?? But that large triangular fragment was brought in late. It couldn't have fallen off the skull at the autopsy.]

 

I was so confused at that point that I kind of gave up on my conversation with David. I was mentally exhausted due to that and my medical condition.

But when I went back through the e-mails the other day, I noticed an attachment sent by David that I hadn't noticed before. In it are facts on the Harper fragment. And there I discovered that he does believe that the Harper fragment is from the occipital bone. (BTW he prepared that document specifically for me, which is very kind of him. I feel bad for not thanking him profusely for that.)

Naturally I wanted to see how he squared that up with the x-ray that seemingly has all the occipital fragments in place. And so I located his e-book and what I found is that he claims he was able to measure with his densitometer a missing fragment about the size of the Harper fragment.

So David doesn't think that film alteration was used to hide the Harper fragment hole.

 

Thanks, Sandy. That is pretty much what I expected. He's confused a bunch of people over the years, and changed his mind about things without acknowledging as much. His initial use of the OD readings was to cast doubt on the authenticity of the 6.5 mm fragment on the x-rays (which he strangely believes was added onto the back of the head after the autopsy), and the large white patch towards the back of the head (which I feel certain is overlapping bone). He then began claiming the readings on the A-P x-ray showed a missing piece on the back of the head that was the exact size of the Harper fragment. He then switched to saying it was the lateral x-rays that showed the missing piece at the back of the head. There was a problem, though. When at a conference he pointed to where the hole begins he pointed to the very location where he used to say the white patch ends. In other words, what used to be the divide between an area that he said was overly white and an area of normal density, had become a divide between an area that he stills says is overly white, but now the adjacent area formerly representative of normal bone density was a hole.

And he said we couldn't see this with our eyes because one can't see holes on the back of the head on a lateral x-ray with one's eyes, and that only he could see it with his OD reader. He failed to understand or at least admit of course that this would have been a very large hole that curved around significantly from the far back of the head, and would have been readily visible to the numerous radiologists who have studied the films without the use of a densitometer. 

[James DiEugenio]

In the film we show the actual illustrations that people drew for the HSCA.

We show the interview with Sibert.

We mention the lie in the HSCA volume 7.

This is all out there in the declassified record.  

There was a blow out hole in the rear of the skull that the HSCA tried to cover up.

And when you add in the particle trail evidence, that shows further that there was a front to back shot.

Add on the Z film, and the testimony of Holland and Bowers, and the photos of all those people running to the GK, and the saw smoke in the air and the people who smelled smoke, plus the Z film, then its pretty much a done deal. When you throw in the brain weight issue, I mean please.

And Mike Chesser has been working on something about those x rays that is very interesting, and also about the brain weight.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Let me add a point on this whole general issue of what is authentic and what is not.

I consider myself a moderate on this topic. I am an agnostic for instance on Z film alteration and I do not think JFK's body was hijacked either in Texas, with Mr. Liggett, or at Bethesda.

My standard, at least the one I had for the documentary was this: was there a chain of custody, and if not could one determine when it was broken?  Because this is how courts decide if evidence is authentic and can be admitted, or admitted with judge's instructions as to how it can be weighed.

In the film, we showed that CE 399 is pretty much a joke.  We also showed that the brain photos could not be admitted since the guy who thought he took them ended up saying he likely did not based on about five reasons that were all pretty much tangible. And they come from the witness himself.  Jeremy Gunn did a very nice job in this regard by getting Stringer on the record before he showed him the pictures so he could not conform his testimony to the actual evidence. (Horne, Inside the ARRB, p. 810)

As for the autopsy photos and the xrays, they contain so many problems that the prosecution would have an uphill task getting them into evidence.  Henry Lee, for one example, was shocked at how poor they were qualitatively and also the lack of essential photos that are standard practice. For example he said when you show a wound on the skull you are supposed to shave the hair around the wound, so you can get a clear idea of the wound boundaries and edges. (This will be in the book of the film. BTW, Lee was even more vociferous about this in a class he taught at New Haven where one of his students said that he want on for 20 minutes on how bad the JFK autopsy was.). But even the HSCA said that the prosecution would have a difficult time getting these pictures into a legal proceeding. 

That was not something we went into specifically in the film.  But we did try and show what chain of custody means, and what authentic evidence is supposed to be. And in the longer version, I think we bring this out with Spencer.  That is that she saw post mortem pictures that were not like the ones in evidence. Again, at trial she would be a real headache for the prosecution.