Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[Tom Graves]

The brain photos show a brain that has virtually no missing tissue, yet we know from the skull x-rays that about 2/3 of the right brain were blown away, as Dr. Fred Hodges confirmed for the Rockefeller Commission, as Dr. Humes himself admitted to JAMA, and as Dr. Mantik confirmed with OD measurements of the x-rays, and that pieces of brain matter from JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces. Yes, Baden was correct, and the fact that the autopsy brain photos show a brain with only 1-2 ounces of missing tissue proves that the brain in the photos cannot possibly be JFK's brain.

Dear Comrade Griffith,

If true, was it an honest slipup, or the work of one of your "twenty to thirty" multi-tasking bad guys?

-- Tom

[Jack Nessan]

You're acting like a Flat Earther who's been confronted with satellite photography and with geographic-topographic measurements of the Earth.

Of course you WC apologists haven't "asked about" the hard science and the massive anecdotal evidence that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

LOL! Yeah, you'd rather rely on a chiropractor ("Dr." Chad Zimmerman) than on a board-certified radiation oncologist who routinely used optical-density (OD) measurements to make his diagnoses, who's had several articles on medical science published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and who also holds a doctorate in physics and taught physics at a major university.

And never mind that Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, has confirmed Dr. Mantik's OD measurements with his own independent OD measurements, hey? Just never mind that, right? You do realize that OD measurement is a recognized science, right? Right? Never mind that Dr. Fred Hodges and even Dr. Humes both said a large part of the right brain was missing, just as Dr. Mantik's OD measurements confirm, hey?

And what about all the other evidence I cited? What about Dr. Hodges' analysis of the skull x-rays? What about Humes's admission to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away? What about the eyewitness accounts of a large amount of missing brain or significant brain splatter provided by mortician Tom Robinson, Clint Hill, Dr. Grossman, Floyd Riebe, Sam Kinney, Robert McClelland, Francis O'Neill, Officer McClain, and Jack McNairy? I notice you said nothing about any of this evidence, nor about the 16 surfaces onto which bits of JFK's brain were blown.

Again, dealing with you guys is similar to dealing with members of a cult, with 9/11 Truthers, with Moon-landing deniers, etc. You know full well that you cannot explain how in the world the brain photos could be of JFK's brain given that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, given the numerous accounts of a large amount of missing brain, and given that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.

Of course you WC apologists haven't "asked about" the hard science and the massive anecdotal evidence that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

Last time I checked, Pat Speer was not a WC apologist. He has a strong opinion on Dr Mantik as basically a clown.

Pat Speer’s opinion on JFK’s headshot controversy and Dr Mantik

But here are some problems.

1. Everyone who's studied the post-mortem x-rays and compared them to JFK's pre-mortem x-rays has agreed they are of the same skull.. 

2. The autopsy report notes that the lining at the top of the brain which holds it in place was torn and loose. (This in itself is telling, as it designates the supposed exit location as an entrance.) In any event, the brain would thereby slump back in the skull when JFK was on his back. 

3. The statements about the brain being gone are almost always made in conjunction with the skull defect being massive. It's clear then. that these men were describing the wound as seen after the skull defect was enlarged and the brain removed. Jenkins, of course, is an exception, in that he was right there when the brain was removed. He said he thought the brain appeared to be small and that Humes made a comment about how easily it came out. Well, heck, this is interesting. But it more logically suggests the underside of the brain was damaged and torn from its moorings than it suggests the skull wound was expanded, the brain removed, another brain inserted, and the skull wound closed back up before the brain observed and handled by Jenkins was removed. Dr. Humes did not normally remove brains, after all. That job was usually performed by an assistant, such as Jenkins. Secondly, the brains removed by Humes were not gunshot victims, where the moorings of the brain had been torn. So his commenting on the ease with which he removed the brain need not be a reference to body alteration, etc. 

4. Dr. Mantik, one of the heroes of the alteration crowd, says the x-rays are deceptive and that they actually DO show the back of the head to be missing. Does that change your impression at all? Or do you agree with the likes of...well, me...that he is blowing smoke?

From patspeer.com, Chapter 13:

Even more disturbing, a September 16, 1977 article distributed by UPI reported that Dr. Russell Morgan had spoken at Michigan State University the day before, and had told reporters that "Mr. Kennedy's X-rays showed conclusively that a single-bullet fired from behind was the cause of death" and that "Congressional investigators should concentrate on other elements in their inquiry into the assassination."

Well, this is quite interesting. The last time Dr. Morgan had been quoted in the press about the assassination was but days before Dr. Cyril Wecht was to become the first non-government-affiliated pathologist to view the assassination materials at the archives, and in effect review his findings. And now, on the day before 6 members of the HSCA pathology panel were to visit the archives and review his findings, and meet with Dr. Humes (whose findings he'd rejected), Morgan re-appears, urging that no new study of the X-rays be conducted. In this context, his words read like a threat. Should everyone to look at the autopsy materials in between these two appearances have confirmed his findings, that would be one thing...but in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, a Professor of Radiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, where Morgan served as Dean, was asked to study Kennedy's X-rays on behalf the Rockefeller Commission, and had provided them a report which directly contradicted Morgan's re-interpretation of the head wound location. Yes, in a little discussed report long withheld from the public, in a passage rarely if ever quoted before I started broadcasting it all over the internet, Hodges refuted the findings of the Clark Panel, noting instead that "a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site." Even worse, for Morgan, was the next line: "The appearance is in keeping with the colored photographs showing a large, compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the occipital region." Morgan, of course, had claimed there was no wound in the occipital bone on the X-rays or photographs, and had pushed the Clark Panel into concluding the wound was actually four inches or more higher on the back of Kennedy's skull, in the parietal bone.

Hodges' then still-secret report was thus bad news for Morgan. And seeing as Morgan was Hodges' boss, it was bad news that Morgan would almost certainly have discovered. It follows then that Morgan's urging congressional investigators to forget about the X-rays and focus on other matters may not have been so innocent, and was instead a plea designed to protect his own reputation. While this might seem a little harsh, let's remember Morgan's viewpoint but five years earlier. While he once was reportedly of the opinion that the X-rays were "produced in a hurry under extremely trying conditions" and were of "poor quality" and "severely over-exposed.," and that "great care and special techniques would be required before they would show the conclusive evidence," he now claimed they "showed conclusively that a single-bullet fired from behind was the cause of death" and that no further investigation was necessary. Perhaps he'd simply changed his mind and no longer felt the cowlick entrance he'd thought he'd "discovered" was a necessary ingredient to the single-assassin conclusion, and worth verifying. Or perhaps he simply didn't care if Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy or not, as long as his own reputation was protected

[Michael T. Griffith]

I think now is a good time to point out that Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the forensic radiologist who examined the JFK autopsy skull x-rays for the ARRB, said that the AP x-ray shows "that right frontal brain is missing" and that "the extremely dark region on the A-P x-ray depicting the upper right side of the cranium" indicates "some absence of brain" (Meeting Report, ARRB, 2/29/1996, p. 1).

Obviously, this is describing much more than just 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue. In fact, keep in mind that Baden noted that "less than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing," an observation confirmed by Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser when they viewed the autopsy brain photos at the National Archives.

Predictably, Jack Nessan has trotted out Pat Speer's embarrassing, amateurish attacks on Dr. Mantik's research, even though I have repeatedly pointed out that Dr. Mantik has shredded Speer's silly criticisms. As I've noted before, Speer has a pathological bias against the idea of any evidence alteration. Most of Speer's research is solid and worthwhile, but his attacks on Dr. Mantik and other scientists who've identified evidence of alteration are silly and erroneous.

This is a perfect example of how WC apologists make this forum a merry-go-around. Nessan and others know that Dr. Mantik has answered Speer in detail, but they never tell you that when they quote Speer on evidence alteration. To get some idea of just how bad and amateurish Speer's attacks on Dr. Mantik's research are, read Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf

As just one example of how badly Speer blunders on the skull x-rays, Speer claims that the impossible white patch on the lateral x-ray is actually the overlapping bone near the right ear. It is hard to fathom how Speer could say this with a straight face. Anyone can look at the lateral x-ray and see that the overlapping bone is clearly to the right of the white patch and has nothing to do with it. They are undeniably in two different areas on the lateral x-ray.

Similarly, Speer's explanations for the 6.5 mm object show he is far out of his field and depth on the subject. I address Speer's attempt to provide innocent explanations for the 6.5 mm object at length in my book A Comforting Lie.

Speer has further discredited himself on this subject by making the ridiculous claim that optical-density (OD) measurements are useless for measuring or identifying metal in x-rays. Such a claim shows an unfortunate and inexcusable ignorance of the science of OD measurement. Speer made this claim when I pressed him to explain the OD measurements and pointed out to him that Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist, had confirmed Dr. Mantik's OD measurements with his own OD measurements.

Now, you watch: A few days or weeks from now, Nessan or some other WC apologist will once again cite Speer's attacks on Mantik's research, and they won't say a word about Mantik's response or about my critique.

Here's what Dr. Greg Henkelmann, another radiation oncologist, who likewise uses OD measurements in his work, has said about Dr. Mantik's OD research on the autopsy x-rays:

Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)

Finally, notice that not one of the responses from WC apologists in this thread offers any credible explanation for the fact that Dr. Fred Hodges noted that the skull x-rays show "a goodly portion of the right brain" is missing, that Dr. Humes admitted to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away, that mortician Tom Robinson said the amount of missing brain tissue equaled the size of a human fist, and that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.

It is simply preposterous and unserious to suggest that all the splattered/blasted brain matter that witnesses described seeing and/or feeling amounted to only 1-2 ounces.

[Jack Nessan]

I think now is a good time to point out that Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the forensic radiologist who examined the JFK autopsy skull x-rays for the ARRB, said that the AP x-ray shows "that right frontal brain is missing" and that "the extremely dark region on the A-P x-ray depicting the upper right side of the cranium" indicates "some absence of brain" (Meeting Report, ARRB, 2/29/1996, p. 1).

Obviously, this is describing much more than just 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue. In fact, keep in mind that Baden noted that "less than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing," an observation confirmed by Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser when they viewed the autopsy brain photos at the National Archives.

Predictably, Jack Nessan has trotted out Pat Speer's embarrassing, amateurish attacks on Dr. Mantik's research, even though I have repeatedly pointed out that Dr. Mantik has shredded Speer's silly criticisms. As I've noted before, Speer has a pathological bias against the idea of any evidence alteration. Most of Speer's research is solid and worthwhile, but his attacks on Dr. Mantik and other scientists who've identified evidence of alteration are silly and erroneous.

This is a perfect example of how WC apologists make this forum a merry-go-around. Nessan and others know that Dr. Mantik has answered Speer in detail, but they never tell you that when they quote Speer on evidence alteration. To get some idea of just how bad and amateurish Speer's attacks on Dr. Mantik's research are, read Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf

As just one example of how badly Speer blunders on the skull x-rays, Speer claims that the impossible white patch on the lateral x-ray is actually the overlapping bone near the right ear. It is hard to fathom how Speer could say this with a straight face. Anyone can look at the lateral x-ray and see that the overlapping bone is clearly to the right of the white patch and has nothing to do with it. They are undeniably in two different areas on the lateral x-ray.

Similarly, Speer's explanations for the 6.5 mm object show he is far out of his field and depth on the subject. I address Speer's attempt to provide innocent explanations for the 6.5 mm object at length in my book A Comforting Lie.

Speer has further discredited himself on this subject by making the ridiculous claim that optical-density (OD) measurements are useless for measuring or identifying metal in x-rays. Such a claim shows an unfortunate and inexcusable ignorance of the science of OD measurement. Speer made this claim when I pressed him to explain the OD measurements and pointed out to him that Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist, had confirmed Dr. Mantik's OD measurements with his own OD measurements.

Now, you watch: A few days or weeks from now, Nessan or some other WC apologist will once again cite Speer's attacks on Mantik's research, and they won't say a word about Mantik's response or about my critique.

Here's what Dr. Greg Henkelmann, another radiation oncologist, who likewise uses OD measurements in his work, has said about Dr. Mantik's OD research on the autopsy x-rays:

Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)

Finally, notice that not one of the responses from WC apologists in this thread offers any credible explanation for the fact that Dr. Fred Hodges noted that the skull x-rays show "a goodly portion of the right brain" is missing, that Dr. Humes admitted to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away, that mortician Tom Robinson said the amount of missing brain tissue equaled the size of a human fist, and that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.

It is simply preposterous and unserious to suggest that all the splattered/blasted brain matter that witnesses described seeing and/or feeling amounted to only 1-2 ounces.

How about instead of blindly following these experts you take the time to read what they are stating.

Reading this individual’s thoughts is flat out just painful. Mantik does nothing more than try to defend OD and never proves what Speer’s stated was wrong.

Isn’t it your argument that there is a 6.5mm object unaccounted for? That it was impossible for it to be in the location that it is supposedly found? Dr Mantik is statng it does not exist because it does not show up on both XRays.

Maybe there is more than one 6.5mm object.

“As radiologist David Mantik points out in the book edited by Fetzer, there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP [Forensic Pathology Panel] as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray, it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the president’s skull or scalp.”

 

Here is my favorite. He takes the title from Rowland as the Biggest BS artist of the JFKA. What a guy.

“These (exterior) pieces can actually be seen in my Figure 1 (horizontal lavender arrow). These observations were made before my Lasik surgery, when I was extremely myopic (-9 diopters) and I could see such small objects in amazing detail without eyeglasses”

Mantik can see things nobody else can see. How about use a magnifying glass, maybe one made with German glass- Leica perhaps.
The biggest question of them all is-- if he was a human microscope why have the Lasik surgery?


Optical Density as a science seems to be the biggest issue for Mantik. Only he sees the value of it.

“Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical], David Mantik and Doug Horne’s status within the so-called research community are of such a proportion that I find it necessary to note the numerous mistakes in their collected works. Here is one such mistake by Horne… Speer then quotes at length from Horne (who was citing me): in short, I stated that the HSCA site shows no entry (as confirmed by the OD data, a basis that Speer ignores), but Speer claims that this conclusion is evidence of my belief in an exit high on the rear of the head. He finishes by suggesting that the HSCA entry site may be real, but merely be located somewhere else! (No evidence is offered for this.) Here is my response to this semantic bog”

 

The 6,5mm object-- if memory serves ----this was one of your biggest concerns. It was about how impossible it was for this 6,5mm object to be located where it was. Turns out it was a piece of bone. Is there another 6.5 mm object or just the one?

Page 12—Humes did not see the 6,5mm object in the lateral.

His “slice” is just a bone spicule, certainly not metal. It has nothing to do with the case, except that it might have resulted from trauma. The only authentic large metal fragment involved in the autopsy is the 7x2 mm one (identified in my Figures 1 and 2), which Humes removed. Speer might also want to read again his own quotes from Humes (p. 25), about the 6.5 mm object: “I can’t be sure I see it in the lateral at all, do you?” And this one too: “I don’t remember retrieving anything of that size.”

 

Again, thanks to Mantik’s superhuman eyes, a discovery was made.

15.Does the metal fragment at the rear of the skull (OTF) correlate with the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP? (pp. 23-28) 

“Yes—definitely! If you disagree, then try this question: Given the metal fragment at the rear (OTF) of the right lateral X-ray, where is its correlate on the AP? I have never found anyone who can answer this question—unless it lies (paradoxically) inside the 6.5 mm object. And that is precisely what my myopic eyes saw at NARA—an optical superposition of the faked 6.5 mm object over the underlying authentic fragment at the rear of the skull (OTF)”

Really. Rowland was a rank amateur compared to what Mantik dreamt up. 


Optical Density measurements are totally the invention of Mantik. Even he has doubts.

“First, at a rather early stage in my OD work, after I had (wrongly) decided that the OD data were inconsistent with composite X-rays (in a widely, but privately, circulated paper, titled “2 + 2 = 4”), I had followed the data where (I thought) they led and stated that the X-rays must be authentic. Speer apparently does not know this history.”

 

This is the source of why Mantik believes the Xray's were faked. 

“The correction of my mistake came from Arthur G. Haus and colleagues at Kodak, who advised me about image crossovers (from one side of the film to the other) in these 1960s X-rays, a technical problem that was later solved. (Initially, I had only known about modern X-ray films, where the image cannot effectively cross over from one side to the other.) The presence of such crossover in these JFK X-rays, though, re-opened the door to photographic alteration in the darkroom. Haus later read my paper, which discussed these image crossovers in the JFK X-rays. In view of this, Speer is demonstrably wrong to say that my mind has been forever closed. (Regarding the role of irrationality and bias in human decision making, see two excellent references—Irrationality: The Enemy Within 1991, Stuart Sutherland and Persuasion: Theory and Research 1990, Daniel J. O’Keefe.)”

Mantik’s whole response to Speer was an attempt to vindicate his use of OD as a tool. No one but Mantik believes it has any validity. 

 

[Tommy Shanks]

"Mantik’s whole response to Speer was an attempt to vindicate his use of OD as a tool. No one but Mantik believes it has any validity."

Amen, Jack. But these are the kinds of people Michael Griffth must resort to relying on to back up his nonsensical theories about x-ray alteration.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Let’s examine more evidence that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent, that they do not show JFK’s brain.

Dr. Boswell stated in his HSCA interview that "the brain was so torn up it would not have shown a tract" (Memorandum: Interview with J. Thornton Boswell, HSCA, August 16, 1977, p. 2). However, the brain in the autopsy brain photos does not look anything like a brain that was "so torn up" it would not have shown a tract. The brain in the alleged brain photos has virtually no tissue missing, has no damage at all on the left side, and has only one large laceration on the right side.

The HSCA FPP admitted that the brain seen in the x-rays of the isolated brain, i.e., the Group 6 x-rays, shows no anatomical features that associate that brain with the other autopsy photos, but the FPP then claimed that the damage (trauma) to the brain in the Group 6 x-rays, which they noted is mainly in the upper part (“superior aspect”) of the frontal lobes, is “certainly consistent” with the damage seen in the other autopsy photos and x-rays:

From the standpoint of positive identification, the most problematical group of autopsy x-rays are those of Group 6, which show the isolated brain. Here we could find no anatomical features that would associate this brain with the remaining autopsy photographs. However, the trauma to the brain, affecting primarily the superior aspect of the frontal lobes, is certainly consistent with the pattern of cranial trauma observed in the autopsy photographs and X-rays. (7 HSCA 50)

The third sentence in this paragraph is erroneous for a number of reasons. It ignores the fact that the autopsy doctors said the rear head entry wound was slightly above (1 cm above) and 2.5 cm to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP), which means the bullet would have torn through the cerebellum. The autopsy doctors reaffirmed the EOP location for the entry wound after reviewing the autopsy photos and x-rays for five hours in 1966. Yet, in the autopsy brain photos, the cerebellum is pristine, undamaged. FPP member Dr. George Loquvam noted that the brain photos show no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum, not even any bleeding.

This, of course, brings us to the damning and revealing—and now discredited—attempt to move the rear head entry wound upward by an astonishing 4 inches, from 1 cm above the EOP to 1.2 cm above the top point of the occipital bone (i.e., 1.2 cm above the lambda), which is in the area of cowlick. The Clark Panel clumsily began the effort in 1967, while making the brazenly false claim that the high fragment trail is the same fragment trail described in the autopsy report and that the high fragment trail lines up with the revised entry wound site. The HSCA FPP doubled down on the bogus cowlick site for the entry wound, in order to try to explain the high fragment trail and the 6.5 mm object in the rear outer table of the skull. 

To believe that the entry wound was in the cowlick, i.e., 1.2 cm above the lambda instead of 1 cm above the EOP, you would have to believe that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole mistook a wound that was 10 cm (4 inches) above the EOP for a wound that was 1 cm (0.4 inches) above the EOP.

When the HSCA FPP asked Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole to identify the wound’s location, they each located the wound near the EOP, right about at the white spot just above the hairline in the back-of-head photo. The FPP found this concerning:

The panel was concerned about the apparent disparity between the localization of the wound in the photographs and X-rays and in the autopsy report and sought to clarify this discrepancy by interviewing the three pathologists, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck, and the radiologist, Dr Ebersole. Each was asked individually to localize the wound of entrance within any one of several of the above-referenced photographs after reviewing the photographs, x-rays, and autopsy report. In each instance they identified the approximate location of the entrance wound on a human skull and within the photographs as being in a position perceived by the panel to be below that described in the autopsy report. They also said it coincided with the rectangular white material interpreted by the panel as brain tissue present on top of the hair near the hairline. Each physician persisted in this localization notwithstanding the apparent discrepancy between that localization and the wound characterized by the panel members as a typical entrance wound in the more superior [the higher] "cowlick” area. (7 HSCA 114)

Here is the core of the problem that faced the HSCA FPP: If the autopsy doctors and Dr. Ebersole were right about the location of the rear head entry wound, the brain photos would have to be rejected as bogus, since the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum and since a bullet entering at the EOP site would have torn through the cerebellum.

Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole were not the only ones who said the entry wound was at the EOP site. FBI agent Francis O’Neill placed the wound near the EOP in his HSCA wound diagram. The autopsy photographer, John Stringer, said the wound was very close to the EOP. 

A key development came in 2005, when former HSCA wound ballistics expert Dr. Larry Sturdivan rejected the cowlick site and endorsed the EOP site in his book The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (pp. 165-180). A number of other experts have rejected the cowlick entry site and have endorsed the EOP site, including Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. David Mantik, Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Gary Aguilar, and Dr. Cyril Wecht.

Again, if the autopsy report’s location of the rear head entry wound is correct, and it most certainly is, then the autopsy brain photos cannot be photos of JFK’s brain.

[Michael T. Griffith]

How about instead of blindly following these experts you take the time to read what they are stating.

Reading this individual’s thoughts is flat out just painful. Mantik does nothing more than try to defend OD and never proves what Speer’s stated was wrong.

Isn’t it your argument that there is a 6.5mm object unaccounted for? That it was impossible for it to be in the location that it is supposedly found? Dr Mantik is statng it does not exist because it does not show up on both XRays.

Maybe there is more than one 6.5mm object.

“As radiologist David Mantik points out in the book edited by Fetzer, there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP [Forensic Pathology Panel] as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray, it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the president’s skull or scalp.”

Here is my favorite. He takes the title from Rowland as the Biggest BS artist of the JFKA. What a guy.

“These (exterior) pieces can actually be seen in my Figure 1 (horizontal lavender arrow). These observations were made before my Lasik surgery, when I was extremely myopic (-9 diopters) and I could see such small objects in amazing detail without eyeglasses”

Mantik can see things nobody else can see. How about use a magnifying glass, maybe one made with German glass- Leica perhaps.

The biggest question of them all is-- if he was a human microscope why have the Lasik surgery?

Optical Density as a science seems to be the biggest issue for Mantik. Only he sees the value of it.

“Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical], David Mantik and Doug Horne’s status within the so-called research community are of such a proportion that I find it necessary to note the numerous mistakes in their collected works. Here is one such mistake by Horne… Speer then quotes at length from Horne (who was citing me): in short, I stated that the HSCA site shows no entry (as confirmed by the OD data, a basis that Speer ignores), but Speer claims that this conclusion is evidence of my belief in an exit high on the rear of the head. He finishes by suggesting that the HSCA entry site may be real, but merely be located somewhere else! (No evidence is offered for this.) Here is my response to this semantic bog”
 
The 6,5mm object-- if memory serves ----this was one of your biggest concerns. It was about how impossible it was for this 6,5mm object to be located where it was. Turns out it was a piece of bone. Is there another 6.5 mm object or just the one?

Page 12—Humes did not see the 6,5mm object in the lateral.

His “slice” is just a bone spicule, certainly not metal. It has nothing to do with the case, except that it might have resulted from trauma. The only authentic large metal fragment involved in the autopsy is the 7x2 mm one (identified in my Figures 1 and 2), which Humes removed. Speer might also want to read again his own quotes from Humes (p. 25), about the 6.5 mm object: “I can’t be sure I see it in the lateral at all, do you?” And this one too: “I don’t remember retrieving anything of that size.” 

Again, thanks to Mantik’s superhuman eyes, a discovery was made.

15.Does the metal fragment at the rear of the skull (OTF) correlate with the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP? (pp. 23-28) 

“Yes—definitely! If you disagree, then try this question: Given the metal fragment at the rear (OTF) of the right lateral X-ray, where is its correlate on the AP? I have never found anyone who can answer this question—unless it lies (paradoxically) inside the 6.5 mm object. And that is precisely what my myopic eyes saw at NARA—an optical superposition of the faked 6.5 mm object over the underlying authentic fragment at the rear of the skull (OTF)”

Really. Rowland was a rank amateur compared to what Mantik dreamt up. 

Optical Density measurements are totally the invention of Mantik. Even he has doubts.


“First, at a rather early stage in my OD work, after I had (wrongly) decided that the OD data were inconsistent with composite X-rays (in a widely, but privately, circulated paper, titled “2 + 2 = 4”), I had followed the data where (I thought) they led and stated that the X-rays must be authentic. Speer apparently does not know this history.” 

This is the source of why Mantik believes the Xray's were faked.

“The correction of my mistake came from Arthur G. Haus and colleagues at Kodak, who advised me about image crossovers (from one side of the film to the other) in these 1960s X-rays, a technical problem that was later solved. (Initially, I had only known about modern X-ray films, where the image cannot effectively cross over from one side to the other.) The presence of such crossover in these JFK X-rays, though, re-opened the door to photographic alteration in the darkroom. Haus later read my paper, which discussed these image crossovers in the JFK X-rays. In view of this, Speer is demonstrably wrong to say that my mind has been forever closed. (Regarding the role of irrationality and bias in human decision making, see two excellent references—Irrationality: The Enemy Within 1991, Stuart Sutherland and Persuasion: Theory and Research 1990, Daniel J. O’Keefe.)”

Mantik’s whole response to Speer was an attempt to vindicate his use of OD as a tool. No one but Mantik believes it has any validity.

I guess you are hoping that no one will bother to read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer. If they do, they will see just how utterly dishonest, misleading, and incompetent your reply is. They will also see that Speer is downright irrational and ignorant when it comes to optical-density (OD) measurements and reading x-rays, and that Mantik demolishes Speer's amateurish nonsense.

Readers might be interested to know that Speer has no college degree. He dropped out of college soon after enrolling to pursue a career in the entertainment industry. Yet, lone-gunman theorists trust Speer over Dr. Mantik, even though Dr. Mantik (1) holds an MD in radiation oncology, (2) holds a PhD in physics, (3) frequently used OD measurements in his work as a radiation oncologist, (4) was a professor of physics at the University of Michigan, and (5) has had several articles relating to radiation published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Lone-gunman theorists also trust Speer over all the experts who have endorsed Dr. Mantik's research.

Who are the experts who have endorsed Dr. Mantik's research? Here is a partial list: Dr. Cyril Wecht (forensic pathologist and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences), Dr. Robert Livingston (a Nobel-prize winning neuroscientist, a former director of NIH, and the scientist who developed some of the first 3D images of the human brain), Dr. Gary Aguilar (clinical professor of ophthalmology, University of California), Dr. Art Snyder (physicist who worked at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center), Dr. Charles Crenshaw (former chief of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth), Arthur G. Haus (former director of medical physics at Kodak, the author of books on x-ray film processing, and a former member of the American College of Radiology's Mammography Accreditation and Quality Assurance Committees), Roy Schaeffer (an expert in film development who served a six-year federal apprenticeship in film development), Dr. John Costella (professor of physics, University of Melbourne, and the author of four articles on physics published in the American Journal of Physics), Daryll Weatherly (mathematician), Thom Whitehead (post-production film editor), Sydney Wilkinson (post-production film expert), Garrett Smith (former Paramount vice president for production technology and digital mastering operations), and Paul Rutan Jr. (an film industry-recognized authority on motion picture film formats with extensive experience in laboratory, optical, HD, and digital formats).

Allow me to repeat what Dr. Greg Henkelmann, a board-certified radiation oncologist, has said about Dr. Mantik and his research:

Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)

BTW, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, a former HSCA wound ballistics consultant, acknowledged in his 2005 book that one of the reasons we know the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray cannot be metallic is that it has no companion image on the lateral x-rays, just as Dr. Mantik has pointed out.

I recommend that interested readers read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Pat Speer:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf