Confused & looking for opinions on JFK's brain.

[David Josephs]

..

 

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by David Josephs

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

I did no such thing...  what's with all the paranoia anyway?

I explained why I superimposed the image...  I explained how I oriented the image exactly the same as you...

I don't know why Mantik did what he did, go ask him yourself please.  Maybe he has changed his thinking since 2009?

Have I ever presented the F8 image with that orientation? No.
But that doesn't discount your mistakes related to the craniotomy, Humes using a saw, the location of the occipital/parietal/temporal bones connecting behind the right ear, or a rear entry wound.

Stick to what I WRITE PLEASE and as I asked, deal with Dr. M directly if you so choose.

Below is the image I posted.. notice the orientation of F8 both on its own and superimposed... do you understand this is the exact same way you have it oriented...?  as to the orientation of the midline, that is pure speculation.. rotate the image on a horizontal plane and everything still works, or make the midline run more perpendicular to the folded over skin and lo and behold, it still works.

Does it not compute for you that if he was shot where you/they claim, based on the orientation of his head to the rear and his looking much more south due to the bend in Elm, a good chunk of his face would have been gone...  that was what they were trying to fake with those bogus xrays.   You get all worked up over Mantik and treat me like a disciple when you and I are closer to each other than I am to 2009 Dr. M.

I also posted the image below that as a closeup of the jar with the SAME ORIENTATION as before... not hiding anything, just focused on the jar.  Can you answer simply and directly or do we get more bait and switch?

1. Do you see it possible that the doctor's hand by the ruler can in fact be holding JFK's head up slightly?
2. Do you accept Reed and Robinson's portrayal of what happened before their eyes?
3. Are you still of the opinion that there was no change in the wounds between Dallas and 8pm Bethesda?
       and finally
4. does it dawn on you that the junction of the 3 skull bones occurs to the back right of the skull and saying "temporal" does not immediately mean the middle-side of the skull?

 

Look at the white line above and to the right of the word skull. Now compare that line to the same line in the deceptive image you insist on reposting over and over. 

Mantik's orientation--which you keep reposting--is at odds with your close up above. Agreed? 

[David Josephs]

..

Edited March 1, 2023 by David Josephs

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

No Pat... the blow-up comes from an F8 oriented exactly the same as yours...  I posted both images again, below. 
They are exactly the same.. your lightened area almost matches my image - can you see that or not?

EXACTLY.  NOW GO DO SOMETHING ELSE FOR A WHILE... YOU'VE LOST YOUR PERSPECTIVE HERE 

BTW - WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER SOME SIMPLE QUESTIONS OTHER THAN ANSWER WITH MORE QUESTIONS? 

I ASKED 4 SIMPLE THINGS AND YOU REFUSE TO COMMIT TO AN ANSWER... WHY IS THAT PAT?

Thank you. You made my point. You have repeatedly presented an image of the mystery photo in Mantik's orientation, and then presented a close-up of the jar etc in my orientation. And there's a reason for this. As stated, Mantik's orientation is nonsense. It has the specimen jar at an angle and the drainage hole floating up in the air or on JFK'S chest, etc-- somewhere other than the table.  

Will you admit this, or are you so determined to suck up to team Mantik that you will pretend you can't see what everyone else on this thread can see? 

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, I took a look at your supposed bullet hole in the top of the head photo, and it appears to have been photoshopped a bit. 

Here's your bullet hole.

 

And here's a gif of the two top of the head photos showing that whatever that shape is, it's above the surface of the skin, and is most probably hair. 

 

[David Josephs]

..

Edited March 1, 2023 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

..

Edited March 1, 2023 by David Josephs

[Pat Speer]

On 2/28/2023 at 5:03 PM, David Josephs said:

Whatever you say buddy...  Hair naturally takes the shape of a perfect circle..   But I agree, the image has been altered in that spot to remove the obvious bullet hole.. "photoshopped" is how you put it....

And thanks once again for avoiding answering anything that pins you to a position or commits you to anything solid beyond the WC fairytale. 

What exactly are you afraid of by not answering some simple questions about your position?

btw, here AGAIN is your orientation and mine side by side...  try pulling your head out long enough to address the questions I put to you so people here can understand your biases and caveats...

Please don't run away and hide behind more questions and sideline BS...  are you truly that far gone these questions pose such a threat to you?

Oh, right, mine is slightly larger in overall dimension...  but even you can see they are the same...

Not my hole Big man, Fox took the photo and Bethesda did the work...  but hey, thanks for realizing it is indeed a bullet hole, right were everyone with a coherent thought in their head places it.  

 

 

Let it be noted that David J refuses to disavow anything by David M...and is now insisting the close up is in the same orientation as I have placed it for 15 years or so...and is acting like this is news to me!

P.S. On closer inspection, I realize that the photo with what he claims is a bullet hole has been around awhile. This makes the gif morphing this with the other photo taken from this orientation quite helpful. It shows that what he claims is a hole is not a hole. And no, his bit about photoshop is nonsense. It makes no sense for "them" to alter one image of a top of the head photo no one was supposed to see but then fail to alter its partner.

Here, moreover, is the right profile photo showing this area from a better angle. Is there a hole there? That went unseen by all the doctors at Parkland and Bethesda? I think not. 

 

 

Edited February 28 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

To be clear, David, my positions on the WR and Arlen Specter are well-known. I have written books on it. I think the WR was a cover-up and think--no, know--Specter was full of it. So I can't imagine what set you off to the point you decided I was a WR supporter.

It should also be noted that I have not been an active moderator since the Simkin years, but am still listed as one in case of emergency, such as when a long-time member of the forum flips out and starts raving at another long-time member of the forum. But that would never happen, now would it?

Let me restate a few points from previous posts. I thought at first that your presentation of the Mantik orientation was deliberately deceptive. The jar and the presumed bullet hole were obscured, and the drainage hole was cropped off. If I understand you correctly, you claim this was unintentional. So I apologize. 

I also thought for a second that your top of the head photo had been altered, to make the round shape more round. But in looking through the various versions of the photo published by the likes of Lifton, Groden, and Livingstone, I am no longer confident of that conclusion. As shown, moreover, the morph gif of the two top of the head photos suggests this was just a lock of hair, or something else atop the skin, and not an actual hole. So I apologize for questioning that image. 

 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

..

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

..

Edited March 1, 2023 by David Josephs

[Micah Mileto]

Where does one find such high-quality digital reproductions of the JFK photographs?

 

Also, it's probably pointless to ask here, but is there any way that David Mantik and Doug Horne could have illegal possession of the ARRB's high-quality digital scans of the photos?

Edited March 1, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[David Josephs]

4 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Where does one find such high-quality digital reproductions of the JFK photographs?

 

Also, it's probably pointless to ask here, but is there any way that David Mantik and Doug Horne could have illegal possession of the ARRB's high-quality digital scans of the photos?

Hi Micah,

You talking about the color ones from the back of his book image or the ones we've been posting?

The 2 reviewers gush over the quality of the images in his book so I have to assume you mean them...
I guess we can ask Dr. M and see...

[Pat Speer]

3 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Where does one find such high-quality digital reproductions of the JFK photographs?

 

Also, it's probably pointless to ask here, but is there any way that David Mantik and Doug Horne could have illegal possession of the ARRB's high-quality digital scans of the photos?

I suspect not. At one point I was approached by a colleague of Mantik's and asked if I could send him copies of the autopsy photos appearing on my website. I told him that I suspected David would have better copies and he told me he did not. 

As far as your first question, the Lancer website used to have high-res scans of if I recall Lifton's photos. The first generation prints that used to belong to Mark Crouch, that were the source of the b and w photos published by Lifton, Groden and Livingstone, were eventually sold to Walt Brown. Who apparently locked them away. I met Walt once and asked him to have hi-res scans of these put online or made available for sale but he didn't seem interested. Yet another reason to be skeptical about the "research" community, IMO. 

[Pat Speer]

Admittedly, I'm confused. Is the image at bottom your image or not? I thought you posted this because you thought it was the proper orientation. Are you now acknowledging it is incorrect?