Landis's Disclosure and the 6.5 mm Object on the Autopsy Skull X-Rays

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/13/2023 at 5:57 PM, Pat Speer said:

I have been battling cancer for a few years, and finally got the ok to travel a few weeks back. So of course I went out last week and tripped on the sidewalk and fractured my humerus. So, no, I won't be traveling to Duquesne, or Dallas. 

As far as Tink's final conclusions, you and I are actually in the same boat. I fail to see evidence for two headshots, one from the front and one from the back, within a split second of Z-313. I have talked to Doug DeSalles (who worked with Tink on his book) about this recently, and he thinks this new presentation will be more convincing. But I suspect that I, and many others, will remain unconvinced. 

Your post does raise an important point about human nature--I think. Tink sees something in the z-film others fail to see, and this feeds into his belief it wasn't faked. While at the same time others fail to see things in the film they assume should be in the film, and this leads them to believe it was faked. Having met and chatted with the likes of William Newman and Mary Moorman, who will tell you the film isn't exactly what they remember, but that they feel sure it wasn't faked, and having had photos emerge of concerts in which I'd been in the crowd, which show me to have been 15 feet or more away from where I distinctly remember being, I put little faith in the recollections of humans when the recollections are at odds with the photographic record.

In my case, I performed a detailed study the eyewitness evidence, photographic evidence, and medical evidence, which led me to believe there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza, and that Oswald was not among them. While some are horrified that the experts and authorities were "fooled" by fake evidence, my horror is greater, as I have come to believe the experts and authorities incapable of separating fact from fiction, once the "proper" conclusion has been determined. 

Anyone who wants to believe that the Zapruder film is pristine needs to explain the impossible human movements and the other impossible events now contained in the film. Believers in the pristine Z film must also assume that 40-plus witnesses, from all over the plaza, had the same mass hallucination when they said the limo stopped or markedly slowed. The extant film shows only a split-second slowdown that can only be detected when the film is played in very slow motion and carefully analyzed. 

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Anyone who wants to believe that the Zapruder film is pristine needs to explain the impossible human movements and the other impossible events now contained in the film. Believers in the pristine Z film must also assume that 40-plus witnesses, from all over the plaza, had the same mass hallucination when they said the limo stopped or markedly slowed. The extant film shows only a split-second slowdown that can only be detected when the film is played in very slow motion and carefully analyzed. 

DON'T REPEAT THE HYPE! The limo stop witnesses have been gone through one by one on this forum and others numerous times. And their statements were cherry-picked to give a false impression. Many of the witnesses actually said the limo slowed--and were thus NOT limo stop witnesses--and many of them said the motorcade stopped--and were not making a reference to the limo at all. 

If you go back and read the original statements and subsequent discussions and still believe the limo stopped, well, then, we have nothing to talk about...ever...again. This is the kind of crap Fetzer brought to the table that guys like Anthony Marsh, Tink Thompson and myself spent years debunking. It is three tramp assassins, midgets in the storm drain, James Files, Roscoe White stuff. Be afraid. 

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

A follow-up on the impossibly bright white patch seen on the lateral skull x-rays.

Dr. Mantik did not just use one of JFK’s pre-mortem skull x-rays as control. He and Dr. Doug DeSalles (M.D.) also used the skull x-rays of nine other deceased persons as controls. The contrast between the light and dark areas on those skull x-rays was only a fraction of the contrast between the white patch and the dark frontal area on JFK’s lateral autopsy skull x-rays. Doug Horne:

          As a scientific “control,” Mantik and his research partner Dr. Doug DeSalles took OD measurements of lateral skull x-rays from nine coroner’s cases to obtain a range of numerical measurements between the brightest and darkest areas on these skull x-rays. In general, the brightest areas of the nine coroner’s cases transmitted about two or three times as much light as the darkest areas.

          Furthermore, subjective, visual examination of the lateral x-rays of these nine skulls did not reveal the extreme contrast between very bright and very dark areas that is seen in the JFK lateral skull x-rays. The subjective visual evidence was consistent with the OD measurements, and vice-a-versa.

          On the right lateral JFK skull x-ray, Dr. Mantik took many OD measurements of two specific areas. The optical density measurements for one extremely bright area located anatomically behind the ear, which he labeled “P” (for posterior) in a diagram at his lectures, was compared with the optical density measurements for a very dark area in the front of the cranium [skull] labeled “F” (for front).

          Amazingly, on the right JFK lateral skull x-ray, OD measurements revealed that area “P” (in the rear of the skull behind the ear) transmitted about 1100 times more light than area “F” (in the forward part of the skull which appears so dark in the x-ray image). That’s worth repeating: The “great white area” in the rear of the skull behind the ear in the JFK right lateral skull x-ray transmitted about1100 times more light than the dark area in the front of the cranium, whereas on the “control” x-rays the ratio was only about 2 or 3 to 1 between the brightest area and the darkest area on each lateral x-ray. (Inside the ARRB, Volume 2, p. 546)