"Admitted Assassin"- not impressed. Mantik's newest book- his best; better than his previous two.

[Keven Hofeling]

5 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

David W. Mantik's Earlier Beliefs:

1. Frontal Shots: Mantik strongly argued that forensic evidence supported shots to JFK's head from the front. This was primarily based on his detailed analysis of the Zapruder film and autopsy records.
2. X-ray Manipulation: He believed that the X-rays of JFK's head were altered to support the single-gunman theory. Mantik suggested that inconsistencies in the optical densities indicated manipulation, aimed at obscuring evidence of frontal shots.

Beliefs in "The Final Analysis":

1. Multiple Headshots: In his 2024 book, co-authored with Jerome Corsi, Mantik presents forensic evidence that JFK was hit by two headshots from the right front and one from the rear, indicating multiple shooters.
2. Forensic Collaboration: This new book includes collaborative forensic analysis, likely integrating more modern techniques or reevaluated evidence to support claims of shots from multiple directions.

@Keyvan Shahrdar I haven't read the new book, but every indication I have had, including from a review of the book I just received from Phil Dragoo yesterday (See below), the data presented by Dr. David Mantik is the same as the data presented in his last two books.

As usual, I don't have the slightest idea what you meant by the following:

Quote

I guess you can't reference Mantik on your lengthy narratives any more.  Mantik seems to have seen the light of day and started to write factual data.  I am so sorry for you loss of citation.

I'm certain that Dr. Mantik's stereoscopic testing findings that the back of the head autopsy photographs have a matte insert placed over the occipital-parietal wound on the right side of the back of JFK's head remains a sound and valid citation (as well as all of his other previous findings). If you think that you have some new information indicating that Dr. Mantik has retreated from any of his previous conclusions, then by all means, do present it:

Dr. David Mantik wrote:

 

⁠ "...While at the National Archives, I performed stereo viewing of the autopsy photographs [8]. This is possible because each view is represented by two separate photographs, taken close together in time and space. Such a pair is what makes stereo viewing possible. I performed this procedure for the original generation of photographs (4” x 5” transparencies), for the color prints, and also for the black and white copies. I did this for many of the distinct views in the collection. But the bottom line is this: the only abnormal site was the back of the head—it always yielded a 2D image, as if each eye had viewed precisely the same image. Of course, that would have been expected if someone (illicitly in a dark room) had inserted the same image into that anatomic site for each member of the photographic pair. I discussed this issue with Robert Groden, who served as the photographic consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-1979. He concurred with my observations, i.e., only the back of the head looked abnormal during his stereo viewing for the HSCA.

 

⁠ Although the large posterior hole is often cited as evidence for a frontal shot, a second issue, perhaps equally as important, should not be overlooked: the severe discrepancy between the photographs and the witnesses—all by itself— strongly suggests manipulation of this photograph. In other words, whoever altered this photograph likely recognized that the large posterior defect loudly proclaimed a frontal shot, so much so in fact, that it became critical to cover that hole.

 

⁠ Pathologist J. Boswell (many decades later) speculated that the scalp had merely been stretched so as to cover the hole. In fact, to have done so, and to have succeeded so seamlessly, would have defeated the sole purpose of the photographs, which presumably was to capture reality. If ever a photograph existed of this large defect, then that one has disappeared.

 

⁠ Some witnesses do recall seeing such a photograph immediately after the autopsy, and we know (from the autopsy photographer himself) that other autopsy photographs have disappeared. Furthermore, we know from Boswell’s sketch on a skull model, that the bone under this apparently intact scalp was in fact missing [9]. So which is more decisive: missing scalp—or missing bone?

 

Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10] [THIS WAS RETITLED TO "WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW," AND WAS RECENTLY RELEASED BY PARAMOUNT +].

 

⁠ Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..."

 

⁠ 'JFK ASSASSINATION PARADOXES: A PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS' | Journal of Health Science & Education | David W. Mantik, MD, PhD   https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf⁠ | Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126.

Mantik Final Analysis

 

 

 

Phil

Apr 18, 2024, 4:59 PM (16 hours ago)

 

Phil's note:  I have just reviewed The Final Analysis by David Mantik and Jerome Corsi on Amazon.  Too often Amazon has rejected my review with all the opaque Kafkaesque implacability of Facebook's android terminator.  As Marcus Aurelius advised, we concern ourselves with that which is within our power:

---

Worth the wait

My exposure to the assassination of JFK began as a student sent home from an English class lecture on Henry David Thoreau to watch another triple-named man's assassination before sixty Dallas police officers.

The presidential commission relied upon a military autopsy with unprecedented anomalies, successive reports with initial efforts burned, x-ray films demonstrably false, photographs contradicting dozens of professional medical witnesses.

The record was corrupted, but it would be six decades of doubt and speculation before this thorough scientific correction. The finality of this ultimate analysis is worth the wait.

Dr. David Mantik, a radiologist with physics doctorate, has demonstrated through the optical density tool of his profession that the president was hit by three head shots: occipital, right forehead, right temple.

Extraordinary claims backed by extraordinary research, nine visits to the Archives, hundreds of individual optical density measurements of the extant frontal (AP) and side (lateral) x-rays showing a fabricated 6.5 mm artifact not noted by the autopsists (Humes, Boswell, Fincke) or the original radiologist (Ebersole).

Evidence of a forehead entry is seen in the skull and the particle stream, a stream which is separate from the occipital and temporal wounds.

The Harper Fragment proves to be the Rosetta Stone of the analysis as it bears metallic traces of entry as well as proves a frontal shot by its forcible expulsion to the rear.

The introduction by Douglas Horne the ARRB military medical records specialist places the x-rays in perspective with the presentation of multiple casket arrivals, pre-autopsy surgery, two brains and two brain exams.

In an era when the call to follow the science is foremost we need look no further than this volume.

___________

 

Edited April 19 by Keven Hofeling

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

6 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

@Keyvan Shahrdar I haven't read the new book, but every indication I have had, including from a review of the book I just received from Phil Dragoo yesterday (See below), the data presented by Dr. David Mantik is the same as the data presented in his last two books.

As usual, I don't have the slightest idea what you meant by the following:

I'm certain that Dr. Mantik's stereoscopic testing findings that the back of the head autopsy photographs have a matte insert placed over the occipital-parietal wound on the right side of the back of JFK's head remains a sound and valid citation (as well as all of his other previous findings). If you think that you have some new information indicating that Dr. Mantik has retreated from any of his previous conclusions, then by all means, do present it:

Dr. David Mantik wrote:

 

⁠ "...While at the National Archives, I performed stereo viewing of the autopsy photographs [8]. This is possible because each view is represented by two separate photographs, taken close together in time and space. Such a pair is what makes stereo viewing possible. I performed this procedure for the original generation of photographs (4” x 5” transparencies), for the color prints, and also for the black and white copies. I did this for many of the distinct views in the collection. But the bottom line is this: the only abnormal site was the back of the head—it always yielded a 2D image, as if each eye had viewed precisely the same image. Of course, that would have been expected if someone (illicitly in a dark room) had inserted the same image into that anatomic site for each member of the photographic pair. I discussed this issue with Robert Groden, who served as the photographic consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-1979. He concurred with my observations, i.e., only the back of the head looked abnormal during his stereo viewing for the HSCA.

 

⁠ Although the large posterior hole is often cited as evidence for a frontal shot, a second issue, perhaps equally as important, should not be overlooked: the severe discrepancy between the photographs and the witnesses—all by itself— strongly suggests manipulation of this photograph. In other words, whoever altered this photograph likely recognized that the large posterior defect loudly proclaimed a frontal shot, so much so in fact, that it became critical to cover that hole.

 

⁠ Pathologist J. Boswell (many decades later) speculated that the scalp had merely been stretched so as to cover the hole. In fact, to have done so, and to have succeeded so seamlessly, would have defeated the sole purpose of the photographs, which presumably was to capture reality. If ever a photograph existed of this large defect, then that one has disappeared.

 

⁠ Some witnesses do recall seeing such a photograph immediately after the autopsy, and we know (from the autopsy photographer himself) that other autopsy photographs have disappeared. Furthermore, we know from Boswell’s sketch on a skull model, that the bone under this apparently intact scalp was in fact missing [9]. So which is more decisive: missing scalp—or missing bone?

 

Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10] [THIS WAS RETITLED TO "WHAT THE DOCTORS SAW," AND WAS RECENTLY RELEASED BY PARAMOUNT +].

 

⁠ Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..."

 

⁠ 'JFK ASSASSINATION PARADOXES: A PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS' | Journal of Health Science & Education | David W. Mantik, MD, PhD   https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf⁠ | Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126.

Mantik Final Analysis

 

 

 

Phil

Apr 18, 2024, 4:59 PM (16 hours ago)

 

Phil's note:  I have just reviewed The Final Analysis by David Mantik and Jerome Corsi on Amazon.  Too often Amazon has rejected my review with all the opaque Kafkaesque implacability of Facebook's android terminator.  As Marcus Aurelius advised, we concern ourselves with that which is within our power:

---

Worth the wait

My exposure to the assassination of JFK began as a student sent home from an English class lecture on Henry David Thoreau to watch another triple-named man's assassination before sixty Dallas police officers.

The presidential commission relied upon a military autopsy with unprecedented anomalies, successive reports with initial efforts burned, x-ray films demonstrably false, photographs contradicting dozens of professional medical witnesses.

The record was corrupted, but it would be six decades of doubt and speculation before this thorough scientific correction. The finality of this ultimate analysis is worth the wait.

Dr. David Mantik, a radiologist with physics doctorate, has demonstrated through the optical density tool of his profession that the president was hit by three head shots: occipital, right forehead, right temple.

Extraordinary claims backed by extraordinary research, nine visits to the Archives, hundreds of individual optical density measurements of the extant frontal (AP) and side (lateral) x-rays showing a fabricated 6.5 mm artifact not noted by the autopsists (Humes, Boswell, Fincke) or the original radiologist (Ebersole).

Evidence of a forehead entry is seen in the skull and the particle stream, a stream which is separate from the occipital and temporal wounds.

The Harper Fragment proves to be the Rosetta Stone of the analysis as it bears metallic traces of entry as well as proves a frontal shot by its forcible expulsion to the rear.

The introduction by Douglas Horne the ARRB military medical records specialist places the x-rays in perspective with the presentation of multiple casket arrivals, pre-autopsy surgery, two brains and two brain exams.

In an era when the call to follow the science is foremost we need look no further than this volume.

___________

 

I know that Mantik's book completely destroys your long lengthy narratives, that by the way, I will never read.  It is all gibberish to me.  Read the book title in Amazon, I know you will be in disbelieve, but try to accept fact, it won't hurt you any.  Facts over narrative, always!

https://www.amazon.com/Assassination-President-John-Kennedy-Headshots/dp/B0CXLN1PX1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=OSSD8OIODJU3&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.kEFknrS7GKRmvDrwf88iSMPrN9dDnphPzgrJOVcyh0GLPv14r8SXEmIEIZ0pjn5wB_j5S8Lzs9s-JN4mZUuvmlyi85nI_tjZ8FDAvvNwriyeKqsMsT2ybVCh-EaFLGVaaCoUrM25WnDxu-UO1yxZgKqfQHZ87zpwipNP4RWRRtSmuYasfJ-KfqiW9ZWBXcw4RJotmsUjDeHk7t6fe7tUw-eYnUp-ctNbNW8MsowOv54.Gh72b770Lqx4iphdqp_qmriOCED8jcflpXP_6WdHBus&dib_tag=se&keywords=book+mantik&qid=1713567986&sprefix=book+mantik%2Caps%2C95&sr=8-1

 

[Keven Hofeling]

27 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

I know that Mantik's book completely destroys your long lengthy narratives, that by the way, I will never read.  It is all gibberish to me.  Read the book title in Amazon, I know you will be in disbelieve, but try to accept fact, it won't hurt you any.  Facts over narrative, always!

https://www.amazon.com/Assassination-President-John-Kennedy-Headshots/dp/B0CXLN1PX1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=OSSD8OIODJU3&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.kEFknrS7GKRmvDrwf88iSMPrN9dDnphPzgrJOVcyh0GLPv14r8SXEmIEIZ0pjn5wB_j5S8Lzs9s-JN4mZUuvmlyi85nI_tjZ8FDAvvNwriyeKqsMsT2ybVCh-EaFLGVaaCoUrM25WnDxu-UO1yxZgKqfQHZ87zpwipNP4RWRRtSmuYasfJ-KfqiW9ZWBXcw4RJotmsUjDeHk7t6fe7tUw-eYnUp-ctNbNW8MsowOv54.Gh72b770Lqx4iphdqp_qmriOCED8jcflpXP_6WdHBus&dib_tag=se&keywords=book+mantik&qid=1713567986&sprefix=book+mantik%2Caps%2C95&sr=8-1

 

All you know about this book is what you've read on an Amazon review page and you are out trumpeting claims from the rooftops that Dr. Mantik has retreated from his long-held scientific findings about the Harper Fragment, fraud in the X-ray evidence and the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound on the right side of the back of JFK's head? Dr. Mantik's findings are all completely consistent with all of the evidence I have presented for you which you have admitted you are too lazy to even read.

As with all of your other rantings, you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Dr. Mantik's books...

 

Edited April 19 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

30 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

I know that Mantik's book completely destroys your long lengthy narratives, that by the way, I will never read.  It is all gibberish to me.  Read the book title in Amazon, I know you will be in disbelieve, but try to accept fact, it won't hurt you any.  Facts over narrative, always!

https://www.amazon.com/Assassination-President-John-Kennedy-Headshots/dp/B0CXLN1PX1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=OSSD8OIODJU3&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.kEFknrS7GKRmvDrwf88iSMPrN9dDnphPzgrJOVcyh0GLPv14r8SXEmIEIZ0pjn5wB_j5S8Lzs9s-JN4mZUuvmlyi85nI_tjZ8FDAvvNwriyeKqsMsT2ybVCh-EaFLGVaaCoUrM25WnDxu-UO1yxZgKqfQHZ87zpwipNP4RWRRtSmuYasfJ-KfqiW9ZWBXcw4RJotmsUjDeHk7t6fe7tUw-eYnUp-ctNbNW8MsowOv54.Gh72b770Lqx4iphdqp_qmriOCED8jcflpXP_6WdHBus&dib_tag=se&keywords=book+mantik&qid=1713567986&sprefix=book+mantik%2Caps%2C95&sr=8-1

 

Now that you are endorsing and expressing your unwavering confidence in Dr. David Mantik's work, it is high time that you become familiar with some of that work (as long as you can get past all that "gibberish" written therein, that is...).

"For photographic information to be accepted as evidence in court, the images must be vouched for; and their whereabouts ascertained at all times. The legal principle is that eyewitness testimony has priority over photographs. The principle was turned upside down by the battalions of lawyers who worked for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and for the WC. For them, against all legal precedent, the assumption was always the reverse: if the witnesses disagreed with the official view, it was assumed that they were in error or even lying. On the other hand, the photographs (and the X-rays, too) were assumed to be immutable monuments to truth. In a real trial, no competent judge would have permitted this illegal approach. In view of the astonishing absence of elementary record keeping for possession of the film, it is likely that no data obtained from the film could have been used in a trial. The paradoxes of the first two reenactments raise tangible concerns about the validity of the Zapruder film as evidence (timing issues, specifically). An attorney for either side could have emphasized that point in addition to the lack of custody if he (or she) wanted to keep the film out of court."

 

David W. Mantik, How the Film of the Century was Edited, included in Assassination Science (1998)

 

THE ZAPRUDER FILM CONTROVERSY [PDF]

 

By David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. 

 

The Mantik View 

 

[Editor’s note: In this essay, David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who has undertaken the most extensive and detailed studies of its internal content and other properties, including comparisons of the film to other copies, of the film to other photographs and films, and of the film to eyewitness reports, in the history of the study of the assassination of JFK, provides a framework for understanding and exploring the questions raised by the lack of authenticity of the film, which has been extensively edited using highly sophisticated techniques. Those who wish to pursue this issue in greater detail should see the studies on this topic in Assassination Science (1998), including Mantik's transformational work.] 

 

"It is misleading to claim that scientific advances and scholarly experiments can cause all photo fakes to be unmasked. Questions about authenticity remain. Many photos that once were considered genuine have ‘recently been determined to be faked. The authenticity of some is still being debated…" - Dino Brugioni.  

 

https://www.academia.edu/69989816/The_Zapruder_Film_Controversy?uc-sb-sw=69890835

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

I read the book and I don't see how Mantik retreated from his previous positions.

I don't think I missed anything.

BTW, the book is really selling well.  I do not recall any recent book in the field selling like this one.  Because of Corsi's connections with rightwing media.

[Pat Speer]

24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I read the book and I don't see how Mantik retreated from his previous positions.

I don't think I missed anything.

BTW, the book is really selling well.  I do not recall any recent book in the field selling like this one.  Because of Corsi's connections with rightwing media.

I try to keep tabs on Mantik's latest findings, and I'm not aware of anything new in this one.

Essentially, about ten years ago, he started claiming his OD readings not only proved a white patch had been added to the x-rays, but that the hole on the back of the head was apparent on the x-rays, only we can't see it.

And, then, around this same time, both he and Horne started claiming there were two headshots from the front, and three in total--one that entered near the temple and blew the Harper fragment off the occipital bone, one that entered the forehead and exited the left side of the back of the head, and one that entered near the EOP..

Now, the only thing I'm not clear on is what Mantik thinks happened to the bullet entering near the EOP. Horne says it did not exit and that there was no exit wound on the front of the head. But Mantik has long-claimed the large fragment was frontal bone, and that Humes saw a gigantic wound at the beginning of the autopsy, so I gotta believe he thinks this was blown from the head and found in the limo, as purported and, to my eyes anyhow, demonstrated in the Z-film.

Now, here's the thing. Without pushing what I believe because who cares really, there are obvious problems with Mantik's scenario. 

The alterationist wing of the party, so to speak, was formed because Lifton and others had a notion the Parkland witnesses were great witnesses and could not be wrong.

But Mantik has 

1. A bullet entering near the EOP that exited somewhere on the top of the head, with neither entrance nor exit being observed at Parkland.

2. A bullet entering near the temple that blew out the middle of the back of the head, with the entrance going unobserved at Parkland and only half the exit being observed at Parkland. 

3. A bullet entering high on the forehead and exiting from the left side of the back of the head, with neither entrance nor exit being (knowingly) observed at Parkland.

He's got six wounds, of which but one half of one wound was observed by the Parkland witnesses

I trust I'm not the only one who has a problem with this. 

 

 

Edited April 20 by Pat Speer

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I try to keep tabs on Mantik's latest findings, and I'm not aware of anything new in this one.

Essentially, about ten years ago, he started claiming his OD readings not only proved a white patch had been added to the x-rays, but that the hole on the back of the head was apparent on the x-rays, only we can't see it.

And, then, around this same time, both he and Horne started claiming there were two headshots from the front, and three in total--one that entered near the temple and blew the Harper fragment off the occipital bone, one that entered the forehead and exited the left side of the back of the head, and one that entered near the EOP..

Now, the only thing I'm not clear on is what Mantik thinks happened to the bullet entering near the EOP. Horne says it did not exit and that there was no exit wound on the front of the head. But Mantik has long-claimed the large fragment was frontal bone, and that Humes saw a gigantic wound at the beginning of the autopsy, so I gotta believe he thinks this was blown from the head and found in the limo, as purported and, to my eyes anyhow, demonstrated in the Z-film.

Now, here's the thing. Without pushing what I believe because who cares really, there are obvious problems with Mantik's scenario. 

The alterationist wing of the party, so to speak, was formed because Lifton and others had a notion the Parkland witnesses were great witnesses and could not be wrong.

But Mantik has 

1. A bullet entering near the EOP that exited somewhere on the top of the head, with neither entrance nor exit being observed at Parkland.

2. A bullet entering near the temple that blew out the middle of the back of the head, with the entrance going unobserved at Parkland and only half the exit being observed at Parkland. 

3. A bullet entering high on the forehead and exiting from the left side of the back of the head, with neither entrance nor exit being (at least admittedly) observed at Parkland.

He's got six wounds, of which but one half of one wound was observed by the doctors. 

I trust I'm not the only one who has a problem with this. 

Interestingly enough, Pat, it is regarding this that you and I have some common ground, but for opposite reasons.

While you, for obvious reasons, want to discount the reports and testimony of the Parkland Hospital witnesses, I think that testimony is the most credible medical evidence in the entire case, so much so that it makes a mockery out of the Zapruder film headshot sequence which depicts a cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead that, as folklore has it, was so perfectly hermetically sealed by a hinged "flap" at Parkland, that nobody saw a hint of it, not even Nurse Diana Bowron who washed the blood clots out of the President's hair before she helped put the body in the casket in Trauma Room One:

 

Although I have the highest respect for Dr. Mantik, I think that he is mistaken about his interpretation of the autopsy X-rays as indicating anterior head damage from gunshots. I suspect that it is actually damage from the modified craniotomy (skull cap) that was performed on the body prior to the start of the "official" autopsy that is responsible for the disruption of the anterior skull in the X-rays and autopsy photographs (EXACTLY as mortician Tom Robinson asserted to the ARRB), and that the actual gunshot damage was confined to the back of the head, just as all of the Parkland doctors and nurses maintained, as well as most of the Secret Service detail.

As can be seen from the following review of Doug Horne's Volume IV of "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," Dr. Mantik is well aware of the illicit surgery and clandestine craniotomy: Why he does not factor those pre-autopsy procedures into his analysis of the X-rays and head damage is a mystery to me:

"...Illicit Surgery at the Bethesda Morgue

In order to paint Humes and Boswell (H&B hereafter) as the morbid co-conspirators, Horne needs first to clarify the timeline – which he does brilliantly (see the Appendix at the end of this review). The ARRB learned, for the first time, that JFK's body initially arrived at the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 PM local time (in a black hearse). That information derives from an after-action report (written on November 26, 1963) by Marine Sergeant Roger Boyajian.3 Quite astonishingly, Boyajian had retained a copy of his report, which he presented to the ARRB. His report corroborates the recollections of Dennis David4 who saw the light gray navy ambulance (with the bronze casket from Dallas) arrive at the front of the hospital, where he saw Jackie exit; its arrival time was either 6:53 PM or 6:55 PM (the sources vary).5 But just about 20 minutes earlier, David had directed his on-duty sailors as they delivered the body in a cheap casket, i.e., the entry described by Boyajian. David estimated (from memory) the delivery time as 6:40 PM, or perhaps 6:45 PM. His estimate is strikingly close to Boyajian's recorded time of 6:35 PM. Horne concludes that this arrival time of 6:35 PM must now be accepted as a foundation stone in this case. As further corroboration for this time, he emphasizes that even Humes agreed with it: before the ARRB, Humes cited the initial arrival as possibly as early as 6:45 PM.6 In my opinion, therefore, it is very difficult to disagree with this early arrival time. If this is accepted, though, the repercussions are colossal – it means that the bronze casket (the one that traveled with Jackie) was empty. Horne next compiles a long table7 of witnesses to the cheap casket and the body bag, both of which were seen at this initial entry. He is also very persuasive here, although he rightfully credits Lifton with much of this groundbreaking work.

Now if the body arrived at 6:35 PM in a cheap shipping casket, when did it exit the bronze casket (the one that left Parkland)? Horne suggests that this transfer occurred right after the bronze casket boarded Air Force One. (Lifton again blazed this trail.) As corroboration for this, Horne8 describes JFK's Air Force Aide, Godfrey McHugh, as perturbed about a delay caused by a 'luggage transfer' between the two official planes. After this transfer to a body bag, tampering became feasible. Horne suggests that an initial foray into the body took place in the forward baggage compartment prior to the flight to DC; the goal was to extract metal debris or a bullet from the throat wound. (It is not known whether anything was found.) Horne infers that a similar attempt was made on the brain, but that attempt likely foundered because the requisite tool (e.g., a bone saw) was missing.

The second casket entry (via a light gray navy ambulance) occurred at about 7:17 PM. James W. Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill, Jr. (the two-member FBI team) and Roy H. Kellerman and William Greer (both Secret Service) together delivered the (empty) bronze casket to the morgue.9 This time is consistent with the arrival time of the bronze casket (shortly before 7 PM) at the front of the hospital. The third casket entry (with the body inside) has traditionally been accepted as the official one – at 8 PM (in a light gray navy ambulance). It was delivered by the Joint Service Casket Team.10 The transfer of the body must have occurred (in the morgue) after the second entry at 7:17 PM. But it must also have transpired after the initial X-rays (for reasons to be discussed below).11 Finally, this transfer must have occurred well in advance of 8 PM so that the bronze casket could leave the morgue (Tom Robinson recalled this temporary departure12), be 'found' by the official casket team, and then delivered again at 8 PM. This sequence of three casket entries looks like a classic French farce, i.e., an affair concocted by a half-mad scriptwriter. Unfortunately, all of the evidence points strongly in the direction of three casket entries. Perhaps this would have been unnecessary, as Horne points out, if only Jackie had not insisted on staying with the bronze casket en route to the morgue. (She had declined a helicopter ride to the White House, which would have separated her from the Dallas casket.) Most likely the plan had been to surreptitiously transfer the body between caskets at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. But Jackie's unexpected decision to remain with the bronze Dallas casket waylaid those plans, which meant that Kellerman (who Horne nominates as the morgue manager) had to improvise on the spot. It was a highly risky business, during which this escapade was nearly uncovered, according to Horne.

Lifton had argued that body alteration had occurred somewhere before Bethesda. He believed that altering the geometry of the shooting through "trajectory reversal" – i.e., turning entrance wounds into exit wounds, and planting false entrance wounds on the body – was the primary reason for the illicit post mortem surgery, and that removing bullet fragments was only a co-equal, or even secondary, goal of the clandestine surgery.13 Horne takes a different tack: he believes that the reason for assaulting the body (before Bethesda) was merely to extract bullet debris, not primarily to alter wounds.

My own views come into play at this point. Before Horne's work, I had become convinced that someone had messed with the throat wound, most likely to extract bullet fragments. The evidence for this was that the two sets of witnesses – those at Parkland vs. those at Bethesda – had disagreed so profoundly. Also, Malcolm Perry, the surgeon who performed the tracheotomy, claimed that he had left the throat wound 'inviolate,' meaning that it was easily visible after the tube was pulled. In addition, Charles Crenshaw insisted that the tracheotomy at Parkland was nothing like the one in the autopsy photographs. I also had my own (telephone) encounter with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole.14 I still sense the horror in his voice as he recalled the tracheotomy and declared that he would never do one like that. Horne's witnesses (there are more) only validate my prior conclusion about throat tampering.

Before Horne's work, I was uncertain about head tampering before Bethesda (although Lifton had made a strong case for it). Nonetheless, I had to agree that if the throat had been explored, then of course the head might also have been invaded. Although Horne is still open-minded about illegal tampering of the skull before Bethesda, he believes that such an event can be inferred from (1) Finck's statement (to the defense team at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969) that the autopsy report (presumably an earlier one, as the extant one does not say this) described the spinal cord as severed when the body arrived at Bethesda and (2) Tom Robinson's comment to the ARRB that the top of the skull was 'badly broken' when the body was received at Bethesda, but that the large defect (in the superior skull) in the autopsy photographs was 'what the [autopsy] doctors did' – i.e., that the missing skull was due to the pathologists, not due an assassin's bullet(s).15 These reports therefore provide more evidence that the head was explored somewhere before Bethesda; the goal was to retrieve bullet debris, but it failed – because the brain could not be extracted from the skull. In summary then, the body arrived at Bethesda as follows: (1) with a radically enlarged tracheotomy16 and no bullet debris in the neck (perhaps there never was any, as I have suggested elsewhere17) and (2) with the same (right occipital) exit wound that was seen at Parkland and with a brain that had not been removed from the skull and that therefore closely, or possibly even exactly, resembled the Parkland brain. Most likely the brain still contained most, or even all, of the bullet fragments from Dealey Plaza. (These metal fragments are, of course, absent from the official record today.) Those are Horne's conclusions about H&B, but let's look at the evidence. [Emphasis not in original].

So why does Horne conclude that H&B illicitly removed (and altered) the brain shortly after 6:35 PM, before any X-rays were taken, and before the official autopsy began? He here introduces two intriguing witnesses – the two R's, namely Reed and Robinson. Edward Reed was assistant to Jerrol Custer (the radiology tech), while Tom Robinson was a mortician. Rather consistently with one another, but quite independently, both describe critical steps taken by H&B that no one else reports. (Horne documents why no one else reported these events – almost everyone else had been evicted from the morgue before this clandestine interlude.) After the body was placed on the morgue table (and before X-rays were taken), Reed briefly sat in the gallery.18 Reed states19 that Humes first used a scalpel across the top of the forehead to pull the scalp back. Then he used a saw to cut the forehead bone, after which he (and Custer, too) were asked to leave the morgue. (Reed was not aware that this intervention by Humes was unofficial.) This activity by Humes is highly significant because multiple witnesses saw the intact entry hole high in the right forehead at the hairline. On the other hand, the autopsy photographs show only a thin incision at this site, an incision that no Parkland witness ever saw. The implication is obvious: this specific autopsy photograph was taken after Humes altered the forehead – thereby likely obliterating the entry hole.

Reed's report suggests that Humes deliberately obliterated the right forehead entry; in fact, the autopsy photograph does not show this entry site. Paradoxically, however, Robinson (the mortician) recalls20 seeing, during restoration, a wound about º inch across at this very location. He even recalls having to place wax at this site. So the question is obvious: If Humes had obliterated the wound (as seems the case based on the extant autopsy photograph), how then could Robinson still see the wound during restoration? This question cannot be answered with certainty, but two options arise: (1) perhaps the wound was indeed obliterated (or mostly obliterated) and Robinson merely suffered some memory merge – i.e., even though he added wax to the incision (the one still visible in the extant photograph), he was actually recalling the way it looked before Humes got to it, or (2) the photograph itself has been altered – to disguise the wound that was visible in an original photograph. The latter option was seemingly endorsed by Joe O'Donnell, the USIA photographer,21 who said that Knudsen actually showed him such a photograph.

Regarding Robinson, Horne concludes that he arrived with the hearse that brought the body (i.e., the first entry). After that, Robinson simply observed events from the morgue gallery; contrary to Reed's experience, he was not asked to leave. Just before 7 PM, Robinson22 saw H&B remove large portions of the rear and top of the skull with a saw, in order to access the brain. (Robinson was not aware that this activity was off the record.) He also observed ten or more bullet fragments extracted from the brain. Although these do not appear in the official record, Dennis David recalls23 preparing a receipt for at least four fragments.24

Contrary to Reed and Robinson, Humes25 declared that a saw was not important:

We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain.

Although James Jenkins (an autopsy technician) does not explicitly describe the use of a saw, he does recall that damage to the brain (as seen inside the skull) was less than the corresponding size of the cranial defect; this indirectly implies prior removal of some of the skull.26

Horne adds an independent argument for multiple casket entries.27 Pierre Finck told the Journal of the American Medical Association28 that he was at home when Humes telephoned him at 7:30 PM. (In his 2/1/65 report to General Blumberg he cites 8 PM.29) Finck, as a forensic pathologist, had been asked to assist with the autopsy. As further confirmation for Finck's overall timeline, he arrived (see his Blumberg report) at the morgue at 8:30 PM. But here is the clincher: during this phone call, Humes told Finck that X-rays had already been taken – and had already been viewed. On the other hand, the official entry time (with the Joint Service Casket Team) was at 8 PM! If that indeed was the one and only entry time, how then could X-rays have been taken – let alone developed and viewed (a process of 30 minutes minimum) – even before the official entry time? The only possible answer is that the body did not first arrive at 8 PM. Furthermore, Custer and Reed, the radiology techs, provide timelines consistent with much earlier X-rays; in particular, they recall seeing Jackie enter the hospital lobby,30 well after the 6:35 PM casket entry – an entry they had personally witnessed. In summary, eyewitnesses convincingly support a much earlier timeline than the official entry of 8 PM. Therefore, multiple casket entries are logically required. And that more relaxed timeline gave H&B time both to perform their illicit surgery and also for skull X-rays to be taken and read, most likely all before 7:30-8:00 PM.

The reader might well ask why Reed and Robinson (and Custer, too) were permitted to observe (at least briefly) this illegal surgery by H&B. Horne proposes that the morgue manager that night (Kellerman) was not present for the first casket entry – that's because he was riding with Jackie and the bronze casket. Therefore, before he arrived (most likely that was shortly after 7 PM), there was no hands-on stage manager in the morgue. It is even possible that Kellerman himself ejected Reed and Custer as soon as he arrived. Robinson, on the other hand, dressed in civilian clothing, may have seemed to Kellerman a lesser threat, so Robinson stayed.

Several conclusions follow from the above analysis. First, the official skull X-rays31 do not show the condition of the skull or the brain as seen at Parkland. Instead, they were taken after tampering by H&B, perhaps even after significant tampering, especially if Robinson and Reed are correct. Furthermore, the massive damage seen in the photographs and X-rays was not caused just by a bullet or even by multiple bullets, but instead by pathological hands. In particular, for a single, full metal-jacketed bullet (the Warren Commission's inevitable scenario) to generate such an enormous defect has always defied credibility.32 Likewise, Boswell's sketch (for the ARRB) on a skull33 of this enormous defect only shows the condition of the skull after tampering by H&B – and does not reflect the skull as seen at Parkland. (The Parkland witnesses fully concur with this.) On the other hand, many witnesses at Bethesda saw the condition of the skull before such tampering began. These witnesses, both physicians and paraprofessionals, uniformly describe a right occipital blowout,34 consistent with a shot from the front. Leaving aside the pathologists, as many as eight Bethesda physicians may be on this list.35 In photographs,36 both Parkland and Bethesda witnesses demonstrate with remarkable unanimity, on their own heads, the location of this obvious exit wound on the right rear skull.

The X-rays do, however, show many small fragments distributed across the top of the skull.37 So why didn't Humes extract more of these? I have previously proposed (based on their actual appearance – as viewed in detail on multiple occasions at the Archives) that they look more like mercury than like lead. If so, then Humes would not have been able to palpate them (mercury is liquid) and would therefore have been unable to remove them during his illicit surgery phase.

We could go on to ask: What other evidence exists for such illicit surgery? Lifton initially introduced this issue by citing the FBI report (by Sibert and O'Neill), which quoted Humes as describing surgery to the head.38 Sibert, in the 2000s, still insisted that they had quoted Humes correctly about such surgery.39 (I also heard Sibert say this in Fort Myers, Florida, during one of Law's taping sessions.) Furthermore, the FBI had no reason to fabricate such a statement. On Lifton's tape (which I have heard), he queries Humes about this; to me, Humes does sound remarkably suspicious and evasive. But the FBI men are not the only witnesses to his statement. Another is James Jenkins, who quotes Humes40 as asking: 'Did they do surgery at Parkland?' Furthermore, Humes was later told, when some skull fragments arrived at the morgue,41 that these had been 'removed' during surgery at Parkland. We all know that did not happen, so where did they come from? Horne implies that Humes himself had removed them during the illicit phase. Another supporting argument is the remarkable ease of removing the brain from the skull (during the official autopsy phase), but this is not so surprising if it had previously been removed during the unofficial phase. James Jenkins42 observed that the brainstem had been cut, as if by a scalpel (not severed by a bullet), which also suggests its earlier removal that evening (while Jenkins was absent). In any case, such an early removal was likely essential to successfully search for (and extract) bullet debris. Even Finck43 bears witness to a transected spinal cord: to the defense team at the Shaw trial in 1969, Finck stated that the autopsy report (presumably an earlier one, as the extant one does not say this) described the spinal cord as severed when the body arrived at Bethesda. Finck was still absent when the brain was removed, so someone must have told him this, most likely Humes.

Horne comments further on the throat wound. He concludes that H&B were well aware of this wound that night and he provides considerable evidence for this conclusion.44 However, given the absence of the throat wound from the FBI report, H&B probably learned of it only after the FBI left, i.e., after 11 PM.45 That information then led to the pathologists' interim discussion of an exit through the throat, as later reported by Richard Lipsey.46 Horne even speculates that an early version of the autopsy report included exactly this scenario, which later had to be discarded because of timing data from the Zapruder film.

Regarding the throat wound I would add the following. Warren Commission loyalists like to cite medical articles that ER personnel cannot reliably distinguish entry from exit wounds. Even if true, though, that comment obfuscates the situation. To the contrary, in this particular case several facts trump those medical reports: (1) such a tiny exit wound could not be duplicated in experiments47 and (2) Milton Helpern (who had done 60,000 autopsies) said that he had never seen an exit wound that was so small (under similar conditions).48 Then there is the question of the magic bullet. As Horne summarizes, its provenance has been extensively investigated by Josiah Thompson49 (with recent assistance from Gary Aguilar). In the face of the persistent refusal of the pertinent witnesses to identify this bullet, most likely it would never have been admitted at trial – and that alone would thoroughly devastate any Warren Commission case.50 A final telling blow derives from the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC): before political leverage was exerted, their scenario actually included a frontal throat shot!51..."

3 Ibid. at Figure 68 and at xxxiii. A more detailed account is in Horne's Appendix 38; see http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1932.

4 David Lifton, Best Evidence (1988), at 569-588.

5 For example, see Clint Hill's statement at http://www.jfk-online.com/clhill.html:
'The motorcade arrived Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:55 p.m.'
Hill also describes landing with Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base at 5:58 PM.

6 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1002.

7 Ibid. at 989-992.

8 Horne cites William Manchester, Death of a President (1967).

9 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1006.

10 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 70.

11 The entire X-ray collection is listed in Ibid. at Figure 58.

12 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1007.

13 In retrospect, Lifton had been grievously misled by the HSCA's false statements, namely that the autopsy photographs were authentic and that all the witnesses agreed with them. This falsehood was only discovered after the movie, JFK, triggered the release of multiple, sequestered witness statements that disagreed with the photographs.

14 James Fetzer, editor, Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), at 433 and 436.

15 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1164.

16 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 60.

17 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 258-259.

18 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 40, shows a sketch of the morgue floor plan, including the gallery.

19 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1035, 1163-1171 and Volume II at 426 and 437.

20 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 250.

21 Ibid. at 242.

22 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1005.

23 Lifton (1988), supra, at 492 and 579.

24 Harry Livingstone actually prints a photograph of four fragments in High Treason (1998), at 562. Their provenance, however, seems uncertain.

25 Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II at 354.

26 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1042-1043.

27 Ibid. at 1000.

28 Breo, D.L., 'JFK's death, Part II – Dr. Finck speaks out, ëtwo bullets, from the rear,' ' JAMA 268:1749 (1992).

29 http://www.jfk-assassination.net/weberman/finck1.htm. Or see Horne's Appendix 29 or 7 HSCA 101, 122, 135, 191. The list of appendices is in Horne, supra, Volume I at xix-lii. The appendices themselves are at the Mary Ferrell website. See my footnote 3 for a link.

30 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1005.

31 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figures 37-38.

32 See Boswell's sketch from the autopsy: Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 11.

33 Ibid. at Figures 12-15.

34 For two eyewitness sketches see Ibid. at Figures 21 & 30. Also see the sketch approved by Parkland physician, Robert McClelland: Ibid. at Figure 81.

35 Michael Kurtz includes George Burkley, Robert Canada, John Ebersole, Calvin Galloway, Robert Karnei, Edward Kenney, David Osborne, and John Stover; see The Assassination Debates (2006), at 39 and 126.

36 Robert Groden, The Killing of a President (1993), at 86-88.

37 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figures 37-38.

38 Lifton, supra, at 295-307.

39 William Law, In the Eye of History (2005), at 143-288.

40 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1036 and 1038.

41 See their X-rays in Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 39.

42 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1037.

43 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1036-1037.

44 Ebersole also confirmed a call to Dallas during our telephone conversations (see my footnote 14). He estimated the time as about 10:30 PM (Ibid. at 999). What struck me, though, is the reason why he recalled this event so clearly: he said that after they learned about the throat wound, they stopped searching for bullet debris on the X-rays (Fetzer (2000), supra, at 437). Quite interestingly, Stringer also seemed to recall such a telephone call (Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1011; Volume I at 166; or HSCA interview with John Stringer, Document 013617, at 4). Moreover, Stringer's estimate of the time agreed with Ebersole's estimate. Dr. Robert Karnei (resident pathologist) also recalled a telephone call to Parkland on that Friday night; see Harry Livingstone, High Treason II (1992), at 186.

45 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 999. Oddly enough, Malcolm Perry, before the Warren Commission, initially recalled his conversation with Humes as Friday night; see Warren Commission Hearings, Volume III at 380 or http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm:

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.

46 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 83.

47 Olivier, A.G., Dziemian, A.J., 'Wound Ballistics of the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition. US Army Edgewood Arsenal Technical Report CRDLR 3264.' March 1965. Also see Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1083 and Kurtz, supra, at 35.

48 Kurtz, supra, at 35. Also see Marshall Houts, Where Death Delights; the Story of Dr. Milton Helpern and Forensic Medicine (1967).

49 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1089-1095. Also see Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), at 176. Thompson here actually wonders if the bullet had been switched by government agents sometime after its initial appearance. Also see   http://www.historymatters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm.

50 David Wrone has made a similar argument for the chain of possession of the Zapruder film; see Fetzer (1998), supra, at 265. Wrone claims that a good lawyer could have kept the film out of the courtroom (although it did surface for the Clay Shaw trial). Given the recent interviews with Dino Brugioni (see below), that argument today is stronger than ever.

51 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1208-1212; the NPIC proposed such a frontal shot at frame Z-190. Of course, there is also the article by Paul Mandel (Ibid. at 1202 and LIFE, December 6, 1963) about the Zapruder film: "Öthe 8 mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed---towards the sniper's nest---just before he clutches it."

'Douglas Horne, Inside the ARRB (Part IV)'
Written by David Mantik | Kennedys & King | Friday, 05 November 2010 22:47 |  https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb-part-iv

"I stand in awe of the scope, detail, and profound insights that Horne has achieved, especially in the medical evidence – to say nothing of his Olympian effort. ... The bottom line is that I feel a deep debt of gratitude to Horne for further disentangling this nearly half-century old Gordian knot. By contrast, I should emphasize that I never experienced that sensation with Bugliosi, writes David Mantik."

 

Edited April 20 by Keven Hofeling

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

All you know about this book is what you've read on an Amazon review page and you are out trumpeting claims from the rooftops that Dr. Mantik has retreated from his long-held scientific findings about the Harper Fragment, fraud in the X-ray evidence and the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound on the right side of the back of JFK's head? Dr. Mantik's findings are all completely consistent with all of the evidence I have presented for you which you have admitted you are too lazy to even read.

As with all of your other rantings, you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Dr. Mantik's books...

 

I appreciate your call for direct evidence amidst the sea of narratives surrounding the JFK assassination. It's clear that you value a narrative over succinctness and factual clarity. Let's address your points with the existing evidence and without diving too deep into interpretative narratives:

1. Harper Fragment: It's just a fragment. Dr. Mantik and others have interpreted its origin based on its composition and location found, but without comprehensive and incontrovertible proof, we must remain open to different interpretations.

2. X-Rays: The claim about the x-rays being altered stems from analyses like those by Dr. Mantik, who pointed out inconsistencies in their optical density and structure. However, these are professional interpretations of the evidence, not indisputable facts. The authenticity of the x-rays is supported by the majority of forensic experts.

3. Zapruder Film: This film is one of the most scrutinized pieces of evidence. Claims of alteration come from discrepancies observed by researchers. However, no concrete proof has surfaced that definitively proves the film was altered. This film, alongside others like the Nix film and the Moorman photo, has been validated by multiple investigations to have no alterations that impact the understanding of the sequence of events.

Your narratives need an emphasis on sticking to the facts is crucial, and so is recognizing that some aspects of this case involve interpretation of evidence, where different experts might disagree. While we may not convince each other of a different viewpoint, it's important to discuss these matters respectfully and consider all evidence critically, whether it supports or challenges our views.

[Keven Hofeling]

18 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

I appreciate your call for direct evidence amidst the sea of narratives surrounding the JFK assassination. It's clear that you value a narrative over succinctness and factual clarity. Let's address your points with the existing evidence and without diving too deep into interpretative narratives:

1. Harper Fragment: It's just a fragment. Dr. Mantik and others have interpreted its origin based on its composition and location found, but without comprehensive and incontrovertible proof, we must remain open to different interpretations.

2. X-Rays: The claim about the x-rays being altered stems from analyses like those by Dr. Mantik, who pointed out inconsistencies in their optical density and structure. However, these are professional interpretations of the evidence, not indisputable facts. The authenticity of the x-rays is supported by the majority of forensic experts.

3. Zapruder Film: This film is one of the most scrutinized pieces of evidence. Claims of alteration come from discrepancies observed by researchers. However, no concrete proof has surfaced that definitively proves the film was altered. This film, alongside others like the Nix film and the Moorman photo, has been validated by multiple investigations to have no alterations that impact the understanding of the sequence of events.

Your narratives need an emphasis on sticking to the facts is crucial, and so is recognizing that some aspects of this case involve interpretation of evidence, where different experts might disagree. While we may not convince each other of a different viewpoint, it's important to discuss these matters respectfully and consider all evidence critically, whether it supports or challenges our views.

“Your Blind Trust in Official Narratives: A Rebuttal”

Ah, the classic defense of the status quo—dismiss any dissenting voice as a conspiracy theorist. Let’s dissect your points with surgical precision, shall we?

1. Harper Fragment: A Conveniently Incomplete Story

   • Oh, it’s “just a fragment,” you say? Convenient. But let’s not forget that fragments can hold the key to truth. Dr. Mantik’s interpretation isn’t some whimsical fairy tale; it’s based on scientific analysis. And while you’re busy waving the “incontrovertible proof” flag, remember that the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.
   • We must remain open to different interpretations, you claim. Agreed! But let’s apply that principle consistently. Why not extend the same courtesy to those who question the official narrative?

2. X-Rays: The Great Optical Odyssey

   • Ah, Dr. Mantik—the thorn in the side of the establishment. His meticulous scrutiny of the x-rays revealed inconsistencies. But no, let’s not call them “indisputable facts.” Instead, let’s trust the majority of forensic experts who, coincidentally, toe the official line.
   • Authenticity? Sure, the majority says they’re legit. But remember, majorities have been wrong throughout history. And if you think optical density and structure discrepancies are mere professional interpretations, you’re missing the forest for the pixelated trees.

3. Zapruder Film: The Holy Grail of Denial

   • Scrutinized? Absolutely. But let’s not pretend it’s untouchable. Discrepancies aren’t just “observed”; they’re glaring. Alterations? Maybe not “concrete proof,” but hey, subtlety isn’t the film’s strong suit. It’s like saying, “Sure, the Mona Lisa might have a mustache, but we can’t prove it.”
   • Validated by investigations? Ah, the circular dance of official validation. Investigate, validate, rinse, repeat. Meanwhile, the Nix film and Moorman photo—also part of this cinematic saga—wink from the shadows.

4. Narratives vs. Facts: A False Dichotomy

   • My dear defender of "official" narratives, let’s talk about “sticking to the facts.” Yes, some aspects involve interpretation. But when experts disagree, it’s not a kumbaya moment—it’s a battleground of ideas. And guess what? Skepticism isn’t a sin; it’s the heartbeat of progress.
   • Respectful discussion? Absolutely! But don’t muzzle dissent with the “we’re all in this together” mantra. We’re not. Some of us wear tin foil hats; others wear blindfolds. Let’s keep the gloves off and wrestle with the truth.

So, my friend, while you sip your official narrative tea, remember that history’s rebels—the Galileos, the Mandelas, the Mantiks—were once labeled conspiracy theorists too. Cheers! 🥂🔍🔎

 

[Pat Speer]

23 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Interestingly enough, Pat, it is regarding this that you and I have some common ground, but for opposite reasons.

While you, for obvious reasons, want to discount the reports and testimony of the Parkland Hospital witnesses, I think that testimony is the most credible medical evidence in the entire case, so much so that it makes a mockery out of the Zapruder film headshot sequence which depicts a cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead that, as folklore has it, was so perfectly hermetically sealed by a hinged "flap" at Parkland, that nobody saw a hint of it, not even Nurse Diana Bowron who washed the blood clots out of the President's hair before she helped put the body in the casket in Trauma Room One:

 

Although I have the highest respect for Dr. Mantik, I think that he is mistaken about his interpretation of the autopsy X-rays as indicating anterior head damage from gunshots. I suspect that it is actually damage from the modified craniotomy (skull cap) that was performed on the body prior to the start of the "official" autopsy that is responsible for the disruption of the anterior skull in the X-rays and autopsy photographs (EXACTLY as mortician Tom Robinson asserted to the ARRB), and that the actual gunshot damage was confined to the back of the head, just as all of the Parkland doctors and nurses maintained, as well as most of the Secret Service detail.

As can be seen from the following review of Doug Horne's Volume IV of "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," Dr. Mantik is well aware of the illicit surgery and clandestine craniotomy: Why he does not factor those pre-autopsy procedures into his analysis of the X-rays and head damage is a mystery to me:

"...Illicit Surgery at the Bethesda Morgue

In order to paint Humes and Boswell (H&B hereafter) as the morbid co-conspirators, Horne needs first to clarify the timeline – which he does brilliantly (see the Appendix at the end of this review). The ARRB learned, for the first time, that JFK's body initially arrived at the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 PM local time (in a black hearse). That information derives from an after-action report (written on November 26, 1963) by Marine Sergeant Roger Boyajian.3 Quite astonishingly, Boyajian had retained a copy of his report, which he presented to the ARRB. His report corroborates the recollections of Dennis David4 who saw the light gray navy ambulance (with the bronze casket from Dallas) arrive at the front of the hospital, where he saw Jackie exit; its arrival time was either 6:53 PM or 6:55 PM (the sources vary).5 But just about 20 minutes earlier, David had directed his on-duty sailors as they delivered the body in a cheap casket, i.e., the entry described by Boyajian. David estimated (from memory) the delivery time as 6:40 PM, or perhaps 6:45 PM. His estimate is strikingly close to Boyajian's recorded time of 6:35 PM. Horne concludes that this arrival time of 6:35 PM must now be accepted as a foundation stone in this case. As further corroboration for this time, he emphasizes that even Humes agreed with it: before the ARRB, Humes cited the initial arrival as possibly as early as 6:45 PM.6 In my opinion, therefore, it is very difficult to disagree with this early arrival time. If this is accepted, though, the repercussions are colossal – it means that the bronze casket (the one that traveled with Jackie) was empty. Horne next compiles a long table7 of witnesses to the cheap casket and the body bag, both of which were seen at this initial entry. He is also very persuasive here, although he rightfully credits Lifton with much of this groundbreaking work.

Now if the body arrived at 6:35 PM in a cheap shipping casket, when did it exit the bronze casket (the one that left Parkland)? Horne suggests that this transfer occurred right after the bronze casket boarded Air Force One. (Lifton again blazed this trail.) As corroboration for this, Horne8 describes JFK's Air Force Aide, Godfrey McHugh, as perturbed about a delay caused by a 'luggage transfer' between the two official planes. After this transfer to a body bag, tampering became feasible. Horne suggests that an initial foray into the body took place in the forward baggage compartment prior to the flight to DC; the goal was to extract metal debris or a bullet from the throat wound. (It is not known whether anything was found.) Horne infers that a similar attempt was made on the brain, but that attempt likely foundered because the requisite tool (e.g., a bone saw) was missing.

The second casket entry (via a light gray navy ambulance) occurred at about 7:17 PM. James W. Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill, Jr. (the two-member FBI team) and Roy H. Kellerman and William Greer (both Secret Service) together delivered the (empty) bronze casket to the morgue.9 This time is consistent with the arrival time of the bronze casket (shortly before 7 PM) at the front of the hospital. The third casket entry (with the body inside) has traditionally been accepted as the official one – at 8 PM (in a light gray navy ambulance). It was delivered by the Joint Service Casket Team.10 The transfer of the body must have occurred (in the morgue) after the second entry at 7:17 PM. But it must also have transpired after the initial X-rays (for reasons to be discussed below).11 Finally, this transfer must have occurred well in advance of 8 PM so that the bronze casket could leave the morgue (Tom Robinson recalled this temporary departure12), be 'found' by the official casket team, and then delivered again at 8 PM. This sequence of three casket entries looks like a classic French farce, i.e., an affair concocted by a half-mad scriptwriter. Unfortunately, all of the evidence points strongly in the direction of three casket entries. Perhaps this would have been unnecessary, as Horne points out, if only Jackie had not insisted on staying with the bronze casket en route to the morgue. (She had declined a helicopter ride to the White House, which would have separated her from the Dallas casket.) Most likely the plan had been to surreptitiously transfer the body between caskets at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. But Jackie's unexpected decision to remain with the bronze Dallas casket waylaid those plans, which meant that Kellerman (who Horne nominates as the morgue manager) had to improvise on the spot. It was a highly risky business, during which this escapade was nearly uncovered, according to Horne.

Lifton had argued that body alteration had occurred somewhere before Bethesda. He believed that altering the geometry of the shooting through "trajectory reversal" – i.e., turning entrance wounds into exit wounds, and planting false entrance wounds on the body – was the primary reason for the illicit post mortem surgery, and that removing bullet fragments was only a co-equal, or even secondary, goal of the clandestine surgery.13 Horne takes a different tack: he believes that the reason for assaulting the body (before Bethesda) was merely to extract bullet debris, not primarily to alter wounds.

My own views come into play at this point. Before Horne's work, I had become convinced that someone had messed with the throat wound, most likely to extract bullet fragments. The evidence for this was that the two sets of witnesses – those at Parkland vs. those at Bethesda – had disagreed so profoundly. Also, Malcolm Perry, the surgeon who performed the tracheotomy, claimed that he had left the throat wound 'inviolate,' meaning that it was easily visible after the tube was pulled. In addition, Charles Crenshaw insisted that the tracheotomy at Parkland was nothing like the one in the autopsy photographs. I also had my own (telephone) encounter with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole.14 I still sense the horror in his voice as he recalled the tracheotomy and declared that he would never do one like that. Horne's witnesses (there are more) only validate my prior conclusion about throat tampering.

Before Horne's work, I was uncertain about head tampering before Bethesda (although Lifton had made a strong case for it). Nonetheless, I had to agree that if the throat had been explored, then of course the head might also have been invaded. Although Horne is still open-minded about illegal tampering of the skull before Bethesda, he believes that such an event can be inferred from (1) Finck's statement (to the defense team at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969) that the autopsy report (presumably an earlier one, as the extant one does not say this) described the spinal cord as severed when the body arrived at Bethesda and (2) Tom Robinson's comment to the ARRB that the top of the skull was 'badly broken' when the body was received at Bethesda, but that the large defect (in the superior skull) in the autopsy photographs was 'what the [autopsy] doctors did' – i.e., that the missing skull was due to the pathologists, not due an assassin's bullet(s).15 These reports therefore provide more evidence that the head was explored somewhere before Bethesda; the goal was to retrieve bullet debris, but it failed – because the brain could not be extracted from the skull. In summary then, the body arrived at Bethesda as follows: (1) with a radically enlarged tracheotomy16 and no bullet debris in the neck (perhaps there never was any, as I have suggested elsewhere17) and (2) with the same (right occipital) exit wound that was seen at Parkland and with a brain that had not been removed from the skull and that therefore closely, or possibly even exactly, resembled the Parkland brain. Most likely the brain still contained most, or even all, of the bullet fragments from Dealey Plaza. (These metal fragments are, of course, absent from the official record today.) Those are Horne's conclusions about H&B, but let's look at the evidence. [Emphasis not in original].

So why does Horne conclude that H&B illicitly removed (and altered) the brain shortly after 6:35 PM, before any X-rays were taken, and before the official autopsy began? He here introduces two intriguing witnesses – the two R's, namely Reed and Robinson. Edward Reed was assistant to Jerrol Custer (the radiology tech), while Tom Robinson was a mortician. Rather consistently with one another, but quite independently, both describe critical steps taken by H&B that no one else reports. (Horne documents why no one else reported these events – almost everyone else had been evicted from the morgue before this clandestine interlude.) After the body was placed on the morgue table (and before X-rays were taken), Reed briefly sat in the gallery.18 Reed states19 that Humes first used a scalpel across the top of the forehead to pull the scalp back. Then he used a saw to cut the forehead bone, after which he (and Custer, too) were asked to leave the morgue. (Reed was not aware that this intervention by Humes was unofficial.) This activity by Humes is highly significant because multiple witnesses saw the intact entry hole high in the right forehead at the hairline. On the other hand, the autopsy photographs show only a thin incision at this site, an incision that no Parkland witness ever saw. The implication is obvious: this specific autopsy photograph was taken after Humes altered the forehead – thereby likely obliterating the entry hole.

Reed's report suggests that Humes deliberately obliterated the right forehead entry; in fact, the autopsy photograph does not show this entry site. Paradoxically, however, Robinson (the mortician) recalls20 seeing, during restoration, a wound about º inch across at this very location. He even recalls having to place wax at this site. So the question is obvious: If Humes had obliterated the wound (as seems the case based on the extant autopsy photograph), how then could Robinson still see the wound during restoration? This question cannot be answered with certainty, but two options arise: (1) perhaps the wound was indeed obliterated (or mostly obliterated) and Robinson merely suffered some memory merge – i.e., even though he added wax to the incision (the one still visible in the extant photograph), he was actually recalling the way it looked before Humes got to it, or (2) the photograph itself has been altered – to disguise the wound that was visible in an original photograph. The latter option was seemingly endorsed by Joe O'Donnell, the USIA photographer,21 who said that Knudsen actually showed him such a photograph.

Regarding Robinson, Horne concludes that he arrived with the hearse that brought the body (i.e., the first entry). After that, Robinson simply observed events from the morgue gallery; contrary to Reed's experience, he was not asked to leave. Just before 7 PM, Robinson22 saw H&B remove large portions of the rear and top of the skull with a saw, in order to access the brain. (Robinson was not aware that this activity was off the record.) He also observed ten or more bullet fragments extracted from the brain. Although these do not appear in the official record, Dennis David recalls23 preparing a receipt for at least four fragments.24

Contrary to Reed and Robinson, Humes25 declared that a saw was not important:

We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain.

Although James Jenkins (an autopsy technician) does not explicitly describe the use of a saw, he does recall that damage to the brain (as seen inside the skull) was less than the corresponding size of the cranial defect; this indirectly implies prior removal of some of the skull.26

Horne adds an independent argument for multiple casket entries.27 Pierre Finck told the Journal of the American Medical Association28 that he was at home when Humes telephoned him at 7:30 PM. (In his 2/1/65 report to General Blumberg he cites 8 PM.29) Finck, as a forensic pathologist, had been asked to assist with the autopsy. As further confirmation for Finck's overall timeline, he arrived (see his Blumberg report) at the morgue at 8:30 PM. But here is the clincher: during this phone call, Humes told Finck that X-rays had already been taken – and had already been viewed. On the other hand, the official entry time (with the Joint Service Casket Team) was at 8 PM! If that indeed was the one and only entry time, how then could X-rays have been taken – let alone developed and viewed (a process of 30 minutes minimum) – even before the official entry time? The only possible answer is that the body did not first arrive at 8 PM. Furthermore, Custer and Reed, the radiology techs, provide timelines consistent with much earlier X-rays; in particular, they recall seeing Jackie enter the hospital lobby,30 well after the 6:35 PM casket entry – an entry they had personally witnessed. In summary, eyewitnesses convincingly support a much earlier timeline than the official entry of 8 PM. Therefore, multiple casket entries are logically required. And that more relaxed timeline gave H&B time both to perform their illicit surgery and also for skull X-rays to be taken and read, most likely all before 7:30-8:00 PM.

The reader might well ask why Reed and Robinson (and Custer, too) were permitted to observe (at least briefly) this illegal surgery by H&B. Horne proposes that the morgue manager that night (Kellerman) was not present for the first casket entry – that's because he was riding with Jackie and the bronze casket. Therefore, before he arrived (most likely that was shortly after 7 PM), there was no hands-on stage manager in the morgue. It is even possible that Kellerman himself ejected Reed and Custer as soon as he arrived. Robinson, on the other hand, dressed in civilian clothing, may have seemed to Kellerman a lesser threat, so Robinson stayed.

Several conclusions follow from the above analysis. First, the official skull X-rays31 do not show the condition of the skull or the brain as seen at Parkland. Instead, they were taken after tampering by H&B, perhaps even after significant tampering, especially if Robinson and Reed are correct. Furthermore, the massive damage seen in the photographs and X-rays was not caused just by a bullet or even by multiple bullets, but instead by pathological hands. In particular, for a single, full metal-jacketed bullet (the Warren Commission's inevitable scenario) to generate such an enormous defect has always defied credibility.32 Likewise, Boswell's sketch (for the ARRB) on a skull33 of this enormous defect only shows the condition of the skull after tampering by H&B – and does not reflect the skull as seen at Parkland. (The Parkland witnesses fully concur with this.) On the other hand, many witnesses at Bethesda saw the condition of the skull before such tampering began. These witnesses, both physicians and paraprofessionals, uniformly describe a right occipital blowout,34 consistent with a shot from the front. Leaving aside the pathologists, as many as eight Bethesda physicians may be on this list.35 In photographs,36 both Parkland and Bethesda witnesses demonstrate with remarkable unanimity, on their own heads, the location of this obvious exit wound on the right rear skull.

The X-rays do, however, show many small fragments distributed across the top of the skull.37 So why didn't Humes extract more of these? I have previously proposed (based on their actual appearance – as viewed in detail on multiple occasions at the Archives) that they look more like mercury than like lead. If so, then Humes would not have been able to palpate them (mercury is liquid) and would therefore have been unable to remove them during his illicit surgery phase.

We could go on to ask: What other evidence exists for such illicit surgery? Lifton initially introduced this issue by citing the FBI report (by Sibert and O'Neill), which quoted Humes as describing surgery to the head.38 Sibert, in the 2000s, still insisted that they had quoted Humes correctly about such surgery.39 (I also heard Sibert say this in Fort Myers, Florida, during one of Law's taping sessions.) Furthermore, the FBI had no reason to fabricate such a statement. On Lifton's tape (which I have heard), he queries Humes about this; to me, Humes does sound remarkably suspicious and evasive. But the FBI men are not the only witnesses to his statement. Another is James Jenkins, who quotes Humes40 as asking: 'Did they do surgery at Parkland?' Furthermore, Humes was later told, when some skull fragments arrived at the morgue,41 that these had been 'removed' during surgery at Parkland. We all know that did not happen, so where did they come from? Horne implies that Humes himself had removed them during the illicit phase. Another supporting argument is the remarkable ease of removing the brain from the skull (during the official autopsy phase), but this is not so surprising if it had previously been removed during the unofficial phase. James Jenkins42 observed that the brainstem had been cut, as if by a scalpel (not severed by a bullet), which also suggests its earlier removal that evening (while Jenkins was absent). In any case, such an early removal was likely essential to successfully search for (and extract) bullet debris. Even Finck43 bears witness to a transected spinal cord: to the defense team at the Shaw trial in 1969, Finck stated that the autopsy report (presumably an earlier one, as the extant one does not say this) described the spinal cord as severed when the body arrived at Bethesda. Finck was still absent when the brain was removed, so someone must have told him this, most likely Humes.

Horne comments further on the throat wound. He concludes that H&B were well aware of this wound that night and he provides considerable evidence for this conclusion.44 However, given the absence of the throat wound from the FBI report, H&B probably learned of it only after the FBI left, i.e., after 11 PM.45 That information then led to the pathologists' interim discussion of an exit through the throat, as later reported by Richard Lipsey.46 Horne even speculates that an early version of the autopsy report included exactly this scenario, which later had to be discarded because of timing data from the Zapruder film.

Regarding the throat wound I would add the following. Warren Commission loyalists like to cite medical articles that ER personnel cannot reliably distinguish entry from exit wounds. Even if true, though, that comment obfuscates the situation. To the contrary, in this particular case several facts trump those medical reports: (1) such a tiny exit wound could not be duplicated in experiments47 and (2) Milton Helpern (who had done 60,000 autopsies) said that he had never seen an exit wound that was so small (under similar conditions).48 Then there is the question of the magic bullet. As Horne summarizes, its provenance has been extensively investigated by Josiah Thompson49 (with recent assistance from Gary Aguilar). In the face of the persistent refusal of the pertinent witnesses to identify this bullet, most likely it would never have been admitted at trial – and that alone would thoroughly devastate any Warren Commission case.50 A final telling blow derives from the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC): before political leverage was exerted, their scenario actually included a frontal throat shot!51..."

3 Ibid. at Figure 68 and at xxxiii. A more detailed account is in Horne's Appendix 38; see http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1932.

4 David Lifton, Best Evidence (1988), at 569-588.

5 For example, see Clint Hill's statement at http://www.jfk-online.com/clhill.html:
'The motorcade arrived Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:55 p.m.'
Hill also describes landing with Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base at 5:58 PM.

6 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1002.

7 Ibid. at 989-992.

8 Horne cites William Manchester, Death of a President (1967).

9 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1006.

10 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 70.

11 The entire X-ray collection is listed in Ibid. at Figure 58.

12 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1007.

13 In retrospect, Lifton had been grievously misled by the HSCA's false statements, namely that the autopsy photographs were authentic and that all the witnesses agreed with them. This falsehood was only discovered after the movie, JFK, triggered the release of multiple, sequestered witness statements that disagreed with the photographs.

14 James Fetzer, editor, Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), at 433 and 436.

15 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1164.

16 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 60.

17 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 258-259.

18 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 40, shows a sketch of the morgue floor plan, including the gallery.

19 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1035, 1163-1171 and Volume II at 426 and 437.

20 Fetzer (2000), supra, at 250.

21 Ibid. at 242.

22 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1005.

23 Lifton (1988), supra, at 492 and 579.

24 Harry Livingstone actually prints a photograph of four fragments in High Treason (1998), at 562. Their provenance, however, seems uncertain.

25 Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II at 354.

26 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1042-1043.

27 Ibid. at 1000.

28 Breo, D.L., 'JFK's death, Part II – Dr. Finck speaks out, ëtwo bullets, from the rear,' ' JAMA 268:1749 (1992).

29 http://www.jfk-assassination.net/weberman/finck1.htm. Or see Horne's Appendix 29 or 7 HSCA 101, 122, 135, 191. The list of appendices is in Horne, supra, Volume I at xix-lii. The appendices themselves are at the Mary Ferrell website. See my footnote 3 for a link.

30 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1005.

31 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figures 37-38.

32 See Boswell's sketch from the autopsy: Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 11.

33 Ibid. at Figures 12-15.

34 For two eyewitness sketches see Ibid. at Figures 21 & 30. Also see the sketch approved by Parkland physician, Robert McClelland: Ibid. at Figure 81.

35 Michael Kurtz includes George Burkley, Robert Canada, John Ebersole, Calvin Galloway, Robert Karnei, Edward Kenney, David Osborne, and John Stover; see The Assassination Debates (2006), at 39 and 126.

36 Robert Groden, The Killing of a President (1993), at 86-88.

37 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figures 37-38.

38 Lifton, supra, at 295-307.

39 William Law, In the Eye of History (2005), at 143-288.

40 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1036 and 1038.

41 See their X-rays in Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 39.

42 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1037.

43 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1036-1037.

44 Ebersole also confirmed a call to Dallas during our telephone conversations (see my footnote 14). He estimated the time as about 10:30 PM (Ibid. at 999). What struck me, though, is the reason why he recalled this event so clearly: he said that after they learned about the throat wound, they stopped searching for bullet debris on the X-rays (Fetzer (2000), supra, at 437). Quite interestingly, Stringer also seemed to recall such a telephone call (Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1011; Volume I at 166; or HSCA interview with John Stringer, Document 013617, at 4). Moreover, Stringer's estimate of the time agreed with Ebersole's estimate. Dr. Robert Karnei (resident pathologist) also recalled a telephone call to Parkland on that Friday night; see Harry Livingstone, High Treason II (1992), at 186.

45 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 999. Oddly enough, Malcolm Perry, before the Warren Commission, initially recalled his conversation with Humes as Friday night; see Warren Commission Hearings, Volume III at 380 or http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm:

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.

46 Horne, supra, Volume I at Figure 83.

47 Olivier, A.G., Dziemian, A.J., 'Wound Ballistics of the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition. US Army Edgewood Arsenal Technical Report CRDLR 3264.' March 1965. Also see Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1083 and Kurtz, supra, at 35.

48 Kurtz, supra, at 35. Also see Marshall Houts, Where Death Delights; the Story of Dr. Milton Helpern and Forensic Medicine (1967).

49 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1089-1095. Also see Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), at 176. Thompson here actually wonders if the bullet had been switched by government agents sometime after its initial appearance. Also see   http://www.historymatters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm.

50 David Wrone has made a similar argument for the chain of possession of the Zapruder film; see Fetzer (1998), supra, at 265. Wrone claims that a good lawyer could have kept the film out of the courtroom (although it did surface for the Clay Shaw trial). Given the recent interviews with Dino Brugioni (see below), that argument today is stronger than ever.

51 Horne, supra, Volume IV at 1208-1212; the NPIC proposed such a frontal shot at frame Z-190. Of course, there is also the article by Paul Mandel (Ibid. at 1202 and LIFE, December 6, 1963) about the Zapruder film: "Öthe 8 mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed---towards the sniper's nest---just before he clutches it."

'Douglas Horne, Inside the ARRB (Part IV)'
Written by David Mantik | Kennedys & King | Friday, 05 November 2010 22:47 |  https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/horne-douglas-inside-the-arrb-part-iv

"I stand in awe of the scope, detail, and profound insights that Horne has achieved, especially in the medical evidence – to say nothing of his Olympian effort. ... The bottom line is that I feel a deep debt of gratitude to Horne for further disentangling this nearly half-century old Gordian knot. By contrast, I should emphasize that I never experienced that sensation with Bugliosi, writes David Mantik."

 

Yes, I am aware that Mantik was briefly swayed by Horne, but his 2021 presentation on the FFF website was presented from the perspective of Humes, and he has Humes lying about just about everything, but NOT about any pre-surgery to the head. In fact, he claims Humes, when first observing JFK, saw a giant hole from front to back on the right side of his head. 

 

 

Edited April 21 by Pat Speer