The Overlooked HSCA "un-enhanced" Lateral X-ray

[Denise Hazelwood]

The "computer-assisted" or "computer-enhanced" lateral autopsy X-ray is readily found online. However, the "un-enhanced" lateral Xray (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060b.htm) contains a few important and overlooked details: 

 

1. The information (e.g., the sella turcica) used to orient the image as a "right" lateral X-ray in the "computer-assisted" version) are not actually visible in the base "un-enhanced" image upon which the "computer assisted" version is purportedly based.
2. The original HSCA caption describes it as showing the "occipital defect"--which is medical-speak for "hole at the back of the head."
3. Note the stuff at the bottom of the image--the spinal column and the two mastoid processes on either side of it, which are cropped out of the "computer assisted" image.

When one tries to overlay the "computer-assisted" over the "un-enhanced" X-ray, there is little to no correspondence in the shape of the skull and other landmarks--and these are supposed to be the same X-ray! However, when one overlays the "pre-mortem" ("living") X-ray over the "computer assisted" image, there is excellence correspondence between the sickle-shaped sella turcica (which helps to orient the location of the face) and the shape of the skull--correspondence that does not exist between the "computer assisted" X-ray and the "un-enhanced" version of what is supposed to be the same X-ray. 

What all this means, is that the commonly found and referenced "computer assisted" image is actually a composite of the pre-mortem "living" X-ray and the "un-enhanced" lateral image. And if one orients the "occipital defect" in the "un-enhanced" image to the back of the head where it belongs, one can see that it indicates a bullet fragment trail from the forehead location moving towards the back of the head. (If one orients the fragment trail as originating from the back of the head, it is too high for either the EOP or the "cowlick" entry locations.)

I've written an article on the HSCA X-rays on my website, at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/hsca-published-x-rays.html . I invite you to give it a read.

[Donald Willis]

On 2/17/2024 at 4:20 PM, Denise Hazelwood said:

The "computer-assisted" or "computer-enhanced" lateral autopsy X-ray is readily found online. However, the "un-enhanced" lateral Xray (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060b.htm) contains a few important and overlooked details: 

 

1. The information (e.g., the sella turcica) used to orient the image as a "right" lateral X-ray in the "computer-assisted" version) are not actually visible in the base "un-enhanced" image upon which the "computer assisted" version is purportedly based.
2. The original HSCA caption describes it as showing the "occipital defect"--which is medical-speak for "hole at the back of the head."
3. Note the stuff at the bottom of the image--the spinal column and the two mastoid processes on either side of it, which are cropped out of the "computer assisted" image.

When one tries to overlay the "computer-assisted" over the "un-enhanced" X-ray, there is little to no correspondence in the shape of the skull and other landmarks--and these are supposed to be the same X-ray! However, when one overlays the "pre-mortem" ("living") X-ray over the "computer assisted" image, there is excellence correspondence between the sickle-shaped sella turcica (which helps to orient the location of the face) and the shape of the skull--correspondence that does not exist between the "computer assisted" X-ray and the "un-enhanced" version of what is supposed to be the same X-ray. 

What all this means, is that the commonly found and referenced "computer assisted" image is actually a composite of the pre-mortem "living" X-ray and the "un-enhanced" lateral image. And if one orients the "occipital defect" in the "un-enhanced" image to the back of the head where it belongs, one can see that it indicates a bullet fragment trail from the forehead location moving towards the back of the head. (If one orients the fragment trail as originating from the back of the head, it is too high for either the EOP or the "cowlick" entry locations.)

I've written an article on the HSCA X-rays on my website, at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/hsca-published-x-rays.html . I invite you to give it a read.

Surprised there's no response yet.  Very intriguing...

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Donald Willis said:

Surprised there's no response yet.  Very intriguing...

Not really. The presumption is that the unenhanced x-ray shows the the face in the lower left corner, which is absurd. It is clearly the back of the head. Another presumption is that the skull in the unenhanced x-ray does not match up with the skull in the enhanced x-ray, which is not true. If one matches it up by the skull fractures, one will find that they do in fact match, but that the enhanced x-ray has been cropped and provides more detail, due to the enhancement. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

45 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The presumption is that the unenhanced x-ray shows the the face in the lower left corner, which is absurd. It is clearly the back of the head. Another presumption is that the skull in the unenhanced x-ray does not match up with the skull in the enhanced x-ray, which is not true. If one matches it up by the skull fractures, one will find that they do in fact match, but that the enhanced x-ray has been cropped and provides more detail, due to the enhancement. 

1. The lower left corner is not clearly the "back of the head" in the un-enhanced X-ray. There are no features whatsoever orienting the front vs. back of the head in the un-enhanced lateral X-ray. There is, however, Dr. Mantik's "white patch," which is hiding--what? I say, it's hiding the facial features.
2. Of course the fracture lines match in the "enhanced" X-ray! The "enhanced" X-ray is a composite, overlaying the un-enhanced X-ray over the "living" X-ray. (On the other hand, try lining up the fracture lines between the "un-enhanced" and "enhanced," and suddenly the bullet fragments fail to line up. And vice versa.) What does not line up between the "un-enhanced" and "enhanced" images is the shape of the skull and other "land-marks," although the shape of the skull in the "enhanced" image matches up very nicely to the "living" X-ray. The sella turcica (which Dr. Chesser describes as "too big" in the "enhanced" image) is clearly not visible in the "unenhanced" image exactly matches the size and shape in the "living" X-ray. 
3. Why would they need to crop the enhanced image in order to "provide more detail"? The only reason for the crop is to hide the spinal column and mastoid processes, which would give away that the "facial features" in the "enhanced" image aren't really "facial features."
4. And what about that "occipital defect" caption? "Occipital defect" means "hole at the back of the head" (not "hole at the front of the head").

[Pat Speer]

58 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

1. The lower left corner is not clearly the "back of the head" in the un-enhanced X-ray. There are no features whatsoever orienting the front vs. back of the head in the un-enhanced lateral X-ray. There is, however, Dr. Mantik's "white patch," which is hiding--what? I say, it's hiding the facial features.
2. Of course the fracture lines match in the "enhanced" X-ray! The "enhanced" X-ray is a composite, overlaying the un-enhanced X-ray over the "living" X-ray. (On the other hand, try lining up the fracture lines between the "un-enhanced" and "enhanced," and suddenly the bullet fragments fail to line up. And vice versa.) What does not line up between the "un-enhanced" and "enhanced" images is the shape of the skull and other "land-marks," although the shape of the skull in the "enhanced" image matches up very nicely to the "living" X-ray. The sella turcica (which Dr. Chesser describes as "too big" in the "enhanced" image) is clearly not visible in the "unenhanced" image exactly matches the size and shape in the "living" X-ray. 
3. Why would they need to crop the enhanced image in order to "provide more detail"? The only reason for the crop is to hide the spinal column and mastoid processes, which would give away that the "facial features" in the "enhanced" image aren't really "facial features."
4. And what about that "occipital defect" caption? "Occipital defect" means "hole at the back of the head" (not "hole at the front of the head").

A defect is not necessarily a hole. It can be a hole, but it can also be a fracture or a malformation. 

Beyond that, I'm not sure what to say. If you really believe that the unenhanced x-ray has the face on left side, you've got your work cut out for you. A number of radiologists have viewed these x-rays and have never noticed such a thing. Heck, even Dr. Mantik acknowledges that the skull sutures on the x-rays match up with the skull sutures on JFK's pre-mortem x-rays. 

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Heck, even Dr. Mantik acknowledges that the skull sutures on the x-rays match up with the skull sutures on JFK's pre-mortem x-rays. 

Actually, when I contacted Dr. Mantik to propose that the X-ray was "flipped" to put the hole at the front of the head instead of the back of the head, his email reply to me was "Of course it was!" Unfortunately, that statement was not public, but in a private email to me. I also tried to contact Cyril Wecht about it, but got no reply. Michael Chesser, for whatever reason, doesn't want to talk with me, so I don't have his views, either, except his statement in his chapter of James Jenkin's book that the sella turcica is too big. In the interview of Custer posted online, he describes using the sella turcica to orient the image and speculates that the "white patch" area was a "double-density" of a skull fragment from the front of the head being blown to the back of the head, although to Vanity Fair he admitted that the X-rays were "fake."

We know from the work of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus that memory can be manipulated by presenting false "evidence" of an event that never occurred, or that occurred differently. I'm also pretty sure that witnesses don't want to look like fools, so when the interviewer has an image or other "evidence" that runs counter to what the witness actually remembers, they start speculating as to why that image might not match their recollections. Hence we have Custer's "double-density" speculation, and Dr. Robert McClelland's "flap of scalp" being pulled over the back of the head wound speculation, and Saundra Kay Spencer's speculation that her 1963 autopsy photographs were made after "reconstructive work" had been done. All these images were altered! And then researchers who try to point that out get labeled as "Conspiracy Theorist Kooks!" Makes me angry as #*%&!!

Meanwhile, "National Security" is used as the catch-phrase to cover up accidents and negligence, as the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Reynolds demonstrates. See my article on "The Supreme Court, State Secrets, and Cover-up" at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/the-supreme-court-state-secrets-and-cover-up.html . Again, makes me angry as #*%&!!!!! A democracy needs transparency in order to function correctly, and what has happened with the JFK Assassination has been anything but transparent! 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Actually, when I contacted Dr. Mantik to propose that the X-ray was "flipped" to put the hole at the front of the head instead of the back of the head, his email reply to me was "Of course it was!" Unfortunately, that statement was not public, but in a private email to me. I also tried to contact Cyril Wecht about it, but got no reply. Michael Chesser, for whatever reason, doesn't want to talk with me, so I don't have his views, either, except his statement in his chapter of James Jenkin's book that the sella turcica is too big. In the interview of Custer posted online, he describes using the sella turcica to orient the image and speculates that the "white patch" area was a "double-density" of a skull fragment from the front of the head being blown to the back of the head, although to Vanity Fair he admitted that the X-rays were "fake."

We know from the work of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus that memory can be manipulated by presenting false "evidence" of an event that never occurred, or that occurred differently. I'm also pretty sure that witnesses don't want to look like fools, so when the interviewer has an image or other "evidence" that runs counter to what the witness actually remembers, they start speculating as to why that image might not match their recollections. Hence we have Custer's "double-density" speculation, and Dr. Robert McClelland's "flap of scalp" being pulled over the back of the head wound speculation, and Saundra Kay Spencer's speculation that her 1963 autopsy photographs were made after "reconstructive work" had been done. All these images were altered! And then researchers who try to point that out get labeled as "Conspiracy Theorist Kooks!" Makes me angry as #*%&!!

Meanwhile, "National Security" is used as the catch-phrase to cover up accidents and negligence, as the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Reynolds demonstrates. See my article on "The Supreme Court, State Secrets, and Cover-up" at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/the-supreme-court-state-secrets-and-cover-up.html . Again, makes me angry as #*%&!!!!! A democracy needs transparency in order to function correctly, and what has happened with the JFK Assassination has been anything but transparent! 

I think Mantik was humoring you. He has written numerous articles and books on the x-rays, and his conclusions run counter to your conclusions. He claims, for example, that the OD readings on the lateral x-ray prove there was a hole in the occipital bone. Well, think about it. In your theory, this hole would be on the front of the head, and not on the occipital bone. And his OD readings would be pointless. So, no, I don't buy for a second that he supports your conclusions. I'm sorry if that sounds rude. But I have been in this world for 20 years now. I have been to and spoken at numerous conventions, and have met most of those considered to be prominent researchers. And they just don't toss aside their research because someone sends them an email proposing a new theory. It doesn't even matter if you're right. That's just not how it works.

Now, if you really want to continue on this trail, you're gonna need to show how the un-enhanced x-ray could be flipped around, whereby the white patch is now at the front, and then overlay this onto the pre-mortem x-ray in a way that makes sense. I mean, that is what what you're saying, right? That the un-enhanced x-ray has been reversed and then superimposed onto the pre-mortem x-ray to create the enhanced x-ray. I have spent a lot of time with these images and I don't see how this could be. But if you created some visual aids, maybe your ideas would become clearer to myself and others. Regards. 

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

In the interview of Custer posted online, he describes using the sella turcica to orient the image and speculates that the "white patch" area was a "double-density" of a skull fragment from the front of the head being blown to the back of the head, although to Vanity Fair he admitted that the X-rays were "fake."

The double-density explanation for the white patch does not work. Not even close. The OD measurements of the white patch prove that the patch would have to be bone from nearly one side of the skull to the other if the patch actually represented bone.

To put it another way, if the white patch was not added to the lateral x-ray, the bone behind it would have to be much thicker than that area of the right skull table plus a frontal fragment blown to a point within the image of the patch. Even four skull fragments within the image of the white patch would not produce the patch's OD measurements. 

We have to keep in mind that when the x-rays were altered, (1) everyone thought the x-rays would remain sealed for at least a few decades, and (2) the science of optical density measurement was barely in its infancy. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 2/21/2024 at 1:46 AM, Pat Speer said:

Now, if you really want to continue on this trail, you're gonna need to show how the un-enhanced x-ray could be flipped around, whereby the white patch is now at the front, and then overlay this onto the pre-mortem x-ray in a way that makes sense. I mean, that is what what you're saying, right? That the un-enhanced x-ray has been reversed and then superimposed onto the pre-mortem x-ray to create the enhanced x-ray. I have spent a lot of time with these images and I don't see how this could be. But if you created some visual aids, maybe your ideas would become clearer to myself and others. Regards.

Per your request, see my YouTube animation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKlbuP3uCuA

 

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

22 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The double-density explanation for the white patch does not work. Not even close. The OD measurements of the white patch prove that the patch would have to be bone from nearly one side of the skull to the other if the patch actually represented bone.

I agree.  But that was Custer's explanation in one of his video interviews posted elsewhere on this forum, and I thought I would mention his explanation for it. Custer's "double-density" explanation was, in my view, his way of reconciling the (altered) "computer enhanced" X-ray placed before him, which he specifically oriented via the sella turcica, and his unshaken recollection of a blow-out hole at the back of the head. I don't think the thought of "image alteration" had yet occurred to him, although it did by the time of his Vanity Fair interview.