Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Mitch Todd, Michael T. Griffith

Author Topic: Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence  (Read 14415 times)

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence
« Reply #35 on: June 26, 2026, 06:24:31 PM »
As Donald Trump recently said to his Energy Secretary Chris Wright, "Nobody cares".

Humm, a few weeks ago, your line was that you defer to the HSCA FPP and their "UNANIMOUS" findings. Then, confronted with some of the FPP's findings that wreak havoc on your version of the shooting, your next line was "I don't have to explain the medical evidence." Nah, of course not, because that would require you to at least know the basics about the medical evidence, which you clearly do not. And so now, your new line is "Nobody cares," i.e., that you don't care, which is perhaps your most honest line yet.


Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1756
Re: Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2026, 06:37:18 PM »
Humm, a few weeks ago, your line was that you defer to the HSCA FPP and their "UNANIMOUS" findings. Then, confronted with some of the FPP's findings that wreak havoc on your version of the shooting, your next line was "I don't have to explain the medical evidence." Nah, of course not, because that would require you to at least know the basics about the medical evidence, which you clearly do not. And so now, your new line is "Nobody cares," i.e., that you don't care, which is perhaps your most honest line yet.

I was speaking specifically about their finding that JFK was shot twice from behind. But you have a long history of taking people's statements out of context and not quoting them accurately. When someone quotes a single word or phrase out of context, as you have here, it's a safe bet they are trying to misrepresent what a person actually said......as you have here.

Online Ted Sager

  • Subscriber
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence
« Reply #37 on: July 05, 2026, 02:30:05 PM »
All commenters are working off evidence presented by researchers that present facts, a photo here a statement from evidence there. We all learn as we go along. I discovered where the head shooter was from the Z-film. Evidence from K's X-rays proves he was shot from a ground location. Like the storm drain at the corner of Elm and Houston that was later removed by Dallas as part of a coverup. K's back wound was at an upward angle as the pass-through slug went on to make the dent by the mirror. Where else could this shot have come from? Not Oswald.

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1756
Re: Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence
« Reply #38 on: July 05, 2026, 02:57:08 PM »
All commenters are working off evidence presented by researchers that present facts, a photo here a statement from evidence there. We all learn as we go along. I discovered where the head shooter was from the Z-film. Evidence from K's X-rays proves he was shot from a ground location. Like the storm drain at the corner of Elm and Houston that was later removed by Dallas as part of a coverup. K's back wound was at an upward angle as the pass-through slug went on to make the dent by the mirror. Where else could this shot have come from? Not Oswald.

Let me see. We can accept the findings of a team of the most respected forensic medical examiners in that country who had access to all the original autopsy photos and x-rays or we can go with the opinion of a rank amateur who has only seen a small subset of low-resolution copies of the photos and x-rays. Gee, that's a tough call.

This photo from the Secret Service re-enactment shows the downward angle of the single bullet entering JFK's back below the collar of his jacket, at the level of the knot of this tie and into the back of JBC next to his armpit. It is a myth that the back shot or the head shot went through JFK on an upward angle.

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/29149/photograph-of-fbi-agents-reenacting-the-kennedy-assassinatio

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence
« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2026, 01:28:43 PM »
Below are some additional problems with the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. I didn't list them in the OP because I didn't want the OP to turn into a book. I feared the OP was already getting a bit long.

-- The lateral skull x-rays show a physically impossible white patch in the lower half of the right-rear part of the skull. The patch's optical-density (OD) measurements are almost the same as those of the petrous bone, which is a physical impossibility. According to the OD measurements of the white patch, the skull bone in this location extends nearly to the other side of the skull, which is a physical impossibility.

-- Dr. Michael Chesser examined and took OD measurements of a pre-mortem JFK skull x-ray at the Kennedy Library in Boston in order to provide a  control for the OD readings of the white patch. He saw nothing resembling the white patch on the pre-mortem skull x-ray, and his OD measurements of the pre-mortem x-ray showed far less density than the OD measurements of the white patch on the lateral autopsy skull x-rays.

-- Another fact that proves the autopsy skull x-rays have been altered is the fact that the white patch on the lateral skull x-rays is nowhere to be seen on the AP skull x-ray. If the white patch had been on the original lateral x-rays, it would be on the AP x-ray as well--indeed, it would very obvious and easy to see on the AP x-ray. But, there is no trace of it on the extant AP x-ray. This is a physical impossibility, as Dr. David Mantik has explained:

It should also be emphasized that, although this white patch is obvious on both lateral skull X-rays, it is nowhere to be seen on the AP (frontal) skull X-ray. In the physical universe that we know, this is impossible. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 9)

-- Additional clear physical proof that the autopsy skull x-rays are not the originals is the fact that on the lateral x-ray of the neck area there is a T-shaped symbol etched onto the x-ray, but there is no emulsion missing from the x-ray at this spot on either side of the film, proving this x-ray is a copy and not an original.

Custer, the autopsy x-ray technician, said he made various marks on the x-rays for identification purposes. When you etch a symbol or letter into x-ray film, naturally there will be emulsion missing from the film at that location on that side of the film. However, there is no emulsion missing from either side of the film of this lateral x-ray, which is hard physical proof that the x-ray is a copy and not an original.

Dr. Mantik made this historic discovery during his final viewing of the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Michael Chesser confirmed the fact that no emulsion is missing from either side of the x-ray film when he examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Mantik:

The T-shaped inscription must have been etched into the emulsion on the original (never-released) lateral X-ray film. Such etching is easy to do, e.g., by using a fingernail, metal file, or nail. The missing emulsion would have been easy to detect, especially while viewing the surface at an angle to a light source. Inspection of the other side would clearly have shown no missing emulsion (because the etching was only done on one side of the double emulsion film). Realizing this, during my final visit to the Archives (April 12, 2001), I scrutinized these emulsions very carefully.

I first asked Steve Tilley, the JFK archivist, to remove the X-ray film from its transparent plastic sheath so that I could view the surfaces directly. He did so. And then, after viewing at multiple angles, I recognized that no emulsion was missing from either side of the film! The implication was inescapable: this could only be a copy film—not an original. That is because the copy film would preserve the image of the T-shaped inscription, but it would also retain its own emulsion (on both sides) -- since no one had scraped emulsion off either side of this copy film. . . .

Once I recognized that this lateral X-ray film was a forgery, I had a shocking insight. None of the three extant JFK skull X-ray films is an original—all three must be copies. In this case, it means that all three are altered images. Most likely, all of the original skull X-ray films (of five to six total) had to be destroyed because they contained forensic proof that Oswald was not the sole assassin.

In Chesser’s review (at the 2015 JFK Lancer Conference), he confirmed my observations of the T-shaped inscription:

"Dr. Mantik described emulsion over the T-shaped wax mark, which was attributed to Ed Reed marking the film. I agree with him that the surface of the film appeared smooth, when viewed at eye level."

Like me, Dr. Chesser saw that emulsion was fully present on both sides of this lateral X-ray film, thus leaving no doubt that the film is a duplicate. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, 2024, pp. 201-203)


-- In September 1977, shortly before the HSCA publicly displayed the JFK autopsy x-rays for the first time, Dr. Russell Morgan, the radiologist on the Clark Panel, said he was no longer so certain that the bullet that hit JFK’s head was an FMJ bullet, and suggested that the high fragment trail might be more consistent with a frangible bullet than with an FMJ bullet because the fragmentation of the bullet was so severe. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 206)

Remember that it was Dr. Morgan who told Howard Donahue that the Clark Panel believed the 6.5 mm object in the rear outer table of the skull was a ricochet fragment.

-- Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik, among others, have noted that the high fragment trail expands from front to back, not back to front, which indicates the bullet struck the front of the head, since fragment trails naturally tend to expand in skulls after penetration.

Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik have also noted that the larger fragments of the high fragment trail are at the end of the trail's expansion, and that the science of ballistics tells us that in a group of bullet fragments the larger fragments will travel farther from the entry point. Dr. Chesser explains this in conjunction with his identification of a right-front entry wound on the skull x-rays:

The most important finding here is the proximity of these tiny metallic fragments to this bone defect. This location, on the intracranial side of the bony defect, is highly suggestive of an entry wound. One of the principles of skull ballistics is that the largest fragments travel the furthest from the entry site, with the smallest fragments traveling the least distance, and that is exactly what is seen on this right lateral skull x-ray. (“The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of Brain Photographs,” November 27, 2017, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-application-of-forensic-principles-for-the-analysis-of-the-autopsy-skull-x-rays-of-president-kennedy-and-a-review-of-the-brain-photographs)

Dr. Mantik adds,

When you look at the x-rays that are stored at the archives now, on the lateral x-ray there is a fragment trail. It actually expands from front to back. . . .

Now why is that important? Well, what we know is that the larger bullet fragments travel farther, whereas the smaller ones tend to stay near the entry site. That’s what we see on these X-rays. In other words, we can reasonably interpret these as being consistent with a frontal bullet, but being radically inconsistent with a posterior bullet. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 193)





« Last Edit: July 08, 2026, 01:30:08 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1756
Re: Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence
« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2026, 02:41:17 PM »
Below are some additional problems with the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. I didn't list them in the OP because I didn't want the OP to turn into a book. I feared the OP was already getting a bit long.

-- The lateral skull x-rays show a physically impossible white patch in the lower half of the right-rear part of the skull. The patch's optical-density (OD) measurements are almost the same as those of the petrous bone, which is a physical impossibility. According to the OD measurements of the white patch, the skull bone in this location extends nearly to the other side of the skull, which is a physical impossibility.

-- Dr. Michael Chesser examined and took OD measurements of a pre-mortem JFK skull x-ray at the Kennedy Library in Boston in order to provide a  control for the OD readings of the white patch. He saw nothing resembling the white patch on the pre-mortem skull x-ray, and his OD measurements of the pre-mortem x-ray showed far less density than the OD measurements of the white patch on the lateral autopsy skull x-rays.

-- Another fact that proves the autopsy skull x-rays have been altered is the fact that the white patch on the lateral skull x-rays is nowhere to be seen on the AP skull x-ray. If the white patch had been on the original lateral x-rays, it would be on the AP x-ray as well--indeed, it would very obvious and easy to see on the AP x-ray. But, there is no trace of it on the extant AP x-ray. This is a physical impossibility, as Dr. David Mantik has explained:

It should also be emphasized that, although this white patch is obvious on both lateral skull X-rays, it is nowhere to be seen on the AP (frontal) skull X-ray. In the physical universe that we know, this is impossible. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 9)

-- Additional clear physical proof that the autopsy skull x-rays are not the originals is the fact that on the lateral x-ray of the neck area there is a T-shaped symbol etched onto the x-ray, but there is no emulsion missing from the x-ray at this spot on either side of the film, proving this x-ray is a copy and not an original.

Custer, the autopsy x-ray technician, said he made various marks on the x-rays for identification purposes. When you etch a symbol or letter into x-ray film, naturally there will be emulsion missing from the film at that location on that side of the film. However, there is no emulsion missing from either side of the film of this lateral x-ray, which is hard physical proof that the x-ray is a copy and not an original.

Dr. Mantik made this historic discovery during his final viewing of the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Michael Chesser confirmed the fact that no emulsion is missing from either side of the x-ray film when he examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Mantik:

The T-shaped inscription must have been etched into the emulsion on the original (never-released) lateral X-ray film. Such etching is easy to do, e.g., by using a fingernail, metal file, or nail. The missing emulsion would have been easy to detect, especially while viewing the surface at an angle to a light source. Inspection of the other side would clearly have shown no missing emulsion (because the etching was only done on one side of the double emulsion film). Realizing this, during my final visit to the Archives (April 12, 2001), I scrutinized these emulsions very carefully.

I first asked Steve Tilley, the JFK archivist, to remove the X-ray film from its transparent plastic sheath so that I could view the surfaces directly. He did so. And then, after viewing at multiple angles, I recognized that no emulsion was missing from either side of the film! The implication was inescapable: this could only be a copy film—not an original. That is because the copy film would preserve the image of the T-shaped inscription, but it would also retain its own emulsion (on both sides) -- since no one had scraped emulsion off either side of this copy film. . . .

Once I recognized that this lateral X-ray film was a forgery, I had a shocking insight. None of the three extant JFK skull X-ray films is an original—all three must be copies. In this case, it means that all three are altered images. Most likely, all of the original skull X-ray films (of five to six total) had to be destroyed because they contained forensic proof that Oswald was not the sole assassin.

In Chesser’s review (at the 2015 JFK Lancer Conference), he confirmed my observations of the T-shaped inscription:

"Dr. Mantik described emulsion over the T-shaped wax mark, which was attributed to Ed Reed marking the film. I agree with him that the surface of the film appeared smooth, when viewed at eye level."

Like me, Dr. Chesser saw that emulsion was fully present on both sides of this lateral X-ray film, thus leaving no doubt that the film is a duplicate. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, 2024, pp. 201-203)


-- In September 1977, shortly before the HSCA publicly displayed the JFK autopsy x-rays for the first time, Dr. Russell Morgan, the radiologist on the Clark Panel, said he was no longer so certain that the bullet that hit JFK’s head was an FMJ bullet, and suggested that the high fragment trail might be more consistent with a frangible bullet than with an FMJ bullet because the fragmentation of the bullet was so severe. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 206)

Remember that it was Dr. Morgan who told Howard Donahue that the Clark Panel believed the 6.5 mm object in the rear outer table of the skull was a ricochet fragment.

-- Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik, among others, have noted that the high fragment trail expands from front to back, not back to front, which indicates the bullet struck the front of the head, since fragment trails naturally tend to expand in skulls after penetration.

Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik have also noted that the larger fragments of the high fragment trail are at the end of the trail's expansion, and that the science of ballistics tells us that in a group of bullet fragments the larger fragments will travel farther from the entry point. Dr. Chesser explains this in conjunction with his identification of a right-front entry wound on the skull x-rays:

The most important finding here is the proximity of these tiny metallic fragments to this bone defect. This location, on the intracranial side of the bony defect, is highly suggestive of an entry wound. One of the principles of skull ballistics is that the largest fragments travel the furthest from the entry site, with the smallest fragments traveling the least distance, and that is exactly what is seen on this right lateral skull x-ray. (“The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of Brain Photographs,” November 27, 2017, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-application-of-forensic-principles-for-the-analysis-of-the-autopsy-skull-x-rays-of-president-kennedy-and-a-review-of-the-brain-photographs)

Dr. Mantik adds,

When you look at the x-rays that are stored at the archives now, on the lateral x-ray there is a fragment trail. It actually expands from front to back. . . .

Now why is that important? Well, what we know is that the larger bullet fragments travel farther, whereas the smaller ones tend to stay near the entry site. That’s what we see on these X-rays. In other words, we can reasonably interpret these as being consistent with a frontal bullet, but being radically inconsistent with a posterior bullet. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 193)


Nobody cares what an amateur like you thinks about the autopsy evidence, especially given that you've seen so little of it.

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
    • JFK Assassination Website
MG:Below are some additional problems with the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. I didn't list them in the OP because I didn't want the OP to turn into a book. I feared the OP was already getting a bit long.

-- The lateral skull x-rays show a physically impossible white patch in the lower half of the right-rear part of the skull. The patch's optical-density (OD) measurements are almost the same as those of the petrous bone, which is a physical impossibility. According to the OD measurements of the white patch, the skull bone in this location extends nearly to the other side of the skull, which is a physical impossibility.

-- Dr. Michael Chesser examined and took OD measurements of a pre-mortem JFK skull x-ray at the Kennedy Library in Boston in order to provide a  control for the OD readings of the white patch. He saw nothing resembling the white patch on the pre-mortem skull x-ray, and his OD measurements of the pre-mortem x-ray showed far less density than the OD measurements of the white patch on the lateral autopsy skull x-rays.

-- Another fact that proves the autopsy skull x-rays have been altered is the fact that the white patch on the lateral skull x-rays is nowhere to be seen on the AP skull x-ray. If the white patch had been on the original lateral x-rays, it would be on the AP x-ray as well--indeed, it would very obvious and easy to see on the AP x-ray. But, there is no trace of it on the extant AP x-ray. This is a physical impossibility, as Dr. David Mantik has explained:

It should also be emphasized that, although this white patch is obvious on both lateral skull X-rays, it is nowhere to be seen on the AP (frontal) skull X-ray. In the physical universe that we know, this is impossible. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 9)

-- Additional clear physical proof that the autopsy skull x-rays are not the originals is the fact that on the lateral x-ray of the neck area there is a T-shaped symbol etched onto the x-ray, but there is no emulsion missing from the x-ray at this spot on either side of the film, proving this x-ray is a copy and not an original.

Custer, the autopsy x-ray technician, said he made various marks on the x-rays for identification purposes. When you etch a symbol or letter into x-ray film, naturally there will be emulsion missing from the film at that location on that side of the film. However, there is no emulsion missing from either side of the film of this lateral x-ray, which is hard physical proof that the x-ray is a copy and not an original.

Dr. Mantik made this historic discovery during his final viewing of the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Michael Chesser confirmed the fact that no emulsion is missing from either side of the x-ray film when he examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Mantik:

The T-shaped inscription must have been etched into the emulsion on the original (never-released) lateral X-ray film. Such etching is easy to do, e.g., by using a fingernail, metal file, or nail. The missing emulsion would have been easy to detect, especially while viewing the surface at an angle to a light source. Inspection of the other side would clearly have shown no missing emulsion (because the etching was only done on one side of the double emulsion film). Realizing this, during my final visit to the Archives (April 12, 2001), I scrutinized these emulsions very carefully.

I first asked Steve Tilley, the JFK archivist, to remove the X-ray film from its transparent plastic sheath so that I could view the surfaces directly. He did so. And then, after viewing at multiple angles, I recognized that no emulsion was missing from either side of the film! The implication was inescapable: this could only be a copy film—not an original. That is because the copy film would preserve the image of the T-shaped inscription, but it would also retain its own emulsion (on both sides) -- since no one had scraped emulsion off either side of this copy film. . . .

Once I recognized that this lateral X-ray film was a forgery, I had a shocking insight. None of the three extant JFK skull X-ray films is an original—all three must be copies. In this case, it means that all three are altered images. Most likely, all of the original skull X-ray films (of five to six total) had to be destroyed because they contained forensic proof that Oswald was not the sole assassin.

In Chesser’s review (at the 2015 JFK Lancer Conference), he confirmed my observations of the T-shaped inscription:

"Dr. Mantik described emulsion over the T-shaped wax mark, which was attributed to Ed Reed marking the film. I agree with him that the surface of the film appeared smooth, when viewed at eye level."

Like me, Dr. Chesser saw that emulsion was fully present on both sides of this lateral X-ray film, thus leaving no doubt that the film is a duplicate. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, 2024, pp. 201-203)

-- In September 1977, shortly before the HSCA publicly displayed the JFK autopsy x-rays for the first time, Dr. Russell Morgan, the radiologist on the Clark Panel, said he was no longer so certain that the bullet that hit JFK’s head was an FMJ bullet, and suggested that the high fragment trail might be more consistent with a frangible bullet than with an FMJ bullet because the fragmentation of the bullet was so severe. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 206)

Remember that it was Dr. Morgan who told Howard Donahue that the Clark Panel believed the 6.5 mm object in the rear outer table of the skull was a ricochet fragment.

-- Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik, among others, have noted that the high fragment trail expands from front to back, not back to front, which indicates the bullet struck the front of the head, since fragment trails naturally tend to expand in skulls after penetration.

Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik have also noted that the larger fragments of the high fragment trail are at the end of the trail's expansion, and that the science of ballistics tells us that in a group of bullet fragments the larger fragments will travel farther from the entry point. Dr. Chesser explains this in conjunction with his identification of a right-front entry wound on the skull x-rays:

The most important finding here is the proximity of these tiny metallic fragments to this bone defect. This location, on the intracranial side of the bony defect, is highly suggestive of an entry wound. One of the principles of skull ballistics is that the largest fragments travel the furthest from the entry site, with the smallest fragments traveling the least distance, and that is exactly what is seen on this right lateral skull x-ray. (“The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of Brain Photographs,” November 27, 2017, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-application-of-forensic-principles-for-the-analysis-of-the-autopsy-skull-x-rays-of-president-kennedy-and-a-review-of-the-brain-photographs)

Dr. Mantik adds,

When you look at the x-rays that are stored at the archives now, on the lateral x-ray there is a fragment trail. It actually expands from front to back. . . .

Now why is that important? Well, what we know is that the larger bullet fragments travel farther, whereas the smaller ones tend to stay near the entry site. That’s what we see on these X-rays. In other words, we can reasonably interpret these as being consistent with a frontal bullet, but being radically inconsistent with a posterior bullet. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 193)


JC:
Nobody cares what an amateur like you thinks about the autopsy evidence, especially given that you've seen so little of it.

In other words, your response to all the forensic, radiologic, and ballistics evidence discussed by Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Morgan is to once again fall back on your dodge that I am merely presenting my own baseless opinions.

It is worth quoting what real medical experts have said about Dr. Mantik's OD research on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.

Dr. Greg Henkelmann, himself a radiation oncologist and physicist:

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. His unusual background exposes the government-sponsored coverup that has deceived Americans into believing that Oswald was a “lone wolf.” It is now past time to be crying wolf.(In Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, p. 157)

Dr. William Keough, a medical physicist at the Edinburgh Cancer Centre in Scotland:

His [Mantik’s] logical and scientific approach refutes the many inconsistencies that officials have promulgated as fact since the 22nd of November 1963. From the 6.5 mm metallic fragment in the AP autopsy X-ray to the “black rectangle” patch on the back of President Kennedy’s skull identified in the copy of the Zapruder film, to name a few.... Although the majority of Americans still do not believe the Warren Commissions’ fairy tale, only a limited number of people will be in a position to evaluate the overwhelming scientific and medical evidence that supports a different narrative. (In Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, pp. 157-158)

Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist:

I viewed the original autopsy skull X-rays at the archives this year [2015] and I confirmed his [Dr. Mantik’s] optical density readings of the lateral skull film, which support his conclusion that there was manipulation. Hopefully there will come a time when better copies of the autopsy x-rays and photographs will be made available for review by a wider audience and the evidence will speak for itself. I applaud Dr. David Mantik for his courage in reporting the truth. . . .

The bright object [in the AP JFK autopsy X-ray] measures 6.5 mm in diameter, and there is no counterpart found on the lateral image. There was no discussion of this in the Warren Commission report, and no official x-ray interpretation was included in the report. No bullet fragment of this size was removed at the time of the autopsy. Within the outline of this bright object are the shapes of two fragments. I agree with Dr. David Mantik that the film was copied, and this bright object was added to the image. (In Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, pp. 158-159)


MG:If so, why do you suppose the lone-gunman view is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world? It's not like the lone-gunman view has suffered from a lack of cheerleading and advocacy by many legacy news outlets. Most people just don't buy what you're selling.

JC: I'd estimate the 90+% of those people are ignorant of the evidence of Oswald's guilt. . . .

LOL! That's the same thing that Moon-landing deniers, 9/11 Truthers, Holocaust deniers, and Flat Earthers say about the fact that most people reject their theories. "Very few people know the facts about the evidence for our views!"

and probably got most of their knowledge from Oliver Stone's @&%$ movie.

More comedy. So a movie made in 1991 is the reason your view on the JFK case is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world!

This is similar to the lame excuse that 9/11 Truthers, Moon-landing deniers, etc., offer to explain why most people don't buy their theories. They complain that news outlets and TV networks haven't given their views a fair hearing.

Yet, you guys certainly can't claim that your version of the JFK case has not received plenty of favorable coverage, and often outright advocacy, by legacy news outlets, but most people still don't buy what you're selling.

« Last Edit: Today at 04:24:26 PM by Michael T. Griffith »