Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Oh my goodness. More comical blunders from you. Are you just going to keep copying and pasting from Speer's critique and ignoring Dr. Mantik's response to Speer's critique? So far, that's all you've done. Dr. Mantik has answered every one of the amateurish and invalid Speer arguments that you keep quoting. When are you going to deal with Dr. Mantik's responses?

For now, let's just deal with Speer's erroneous argument that Dr. Mantik did not do OD measurements on the unenhanced x-rays but only on the enhanced x-rays/prints of the enhanced x-rays. Dr. Mantik refutes this in his reply to Speer, and I've given the link to his reply twice in this thread, but you just keep repeating Speer's erroneous claim. Let's read what Dr. Mantik says regarding the claim:

Okay, are we clear now? How many more times am I going to have to embarrass you over your repetition of debunked arguments? Speer is out to lunch and way out of his depth on the autopsy x-rays and photos, and his criticisms of Dr. Mantik's OD research are erroneous and often downright silly.

    "Only one explanation is possible--this left, lateral skull X ray is a copy.
     The reason, of course, is that the emulsion of a copy film would be fully
     intact, yet at the same time it would faithfully record any areas of
     increased transmission (i.e., missing emulsion) from the original.
     A simple or more straightforward proof of film copying is unimaginable.
     After my visit, I sent a specific letter of inquiry on this point to Steven Tilley.
     His letter of response is makes it clear that NARA considers all of the
     extant X-rays to be originals. None are copies."
          -- David Mantik

Quote
So now let me answer your silly, ignorant questions, which were based on your acceptance of Speer's erroneous claim that Dr. Mantik did not do OD measurements on the original unenhanced autopsy x-rays:

The white patch does appear on the original unenhanced lateral autopsy skull x-rays, and Dr. Mantik's OD measurements for it are in several of his articles and in his new book.

So why does he say he was given a copy? And why not use the original unenhanced x-ray to demonstrate how much more white the "white patch" is?


The original x-ray showed a fairly-
even range of whiteness.

The HSCA enhancement unintentionally
added some artificial contrast.

Both the original x-ray and the enhanced version show the petrous bone brighter than the "white patch".

The JFK x-rays are not of comparable quality to modern x-rays. The Bethesda x-rays were taken using a 1940s portable machine.

    "After taking the preliminary X-rays, Custer and Reed carried the
     cassettes up to the Radiology Department on the fourth floor.
     To allow for the possibility that an X-ray did not develop satisfactorily,
     Reed loaded two film sheets in each cassette rather than the normal
     single sheet. To compensate for the extra film, he had to boost the
     X-ray energy level to make the screens glow brighter during exposure."

    "Unlike a photographic image, which typically registers only the object's
     surface features, an X-ray registers all the object's features, inside and
     out. Think of each point in an X-ray image as a summation of shadows.
     Consider of the objects struck by a particular ray, such as bone, tissue,
     air pockets, and blood on its way to the film. The brightness of that point
     on the film is the summation of all the densities the ray encountered. A ray
     that passes through bone and tissue records a brighter image than a ray
     that passes through just bone. A ray that grazes the edge of the skull
     travels over a large distance of bone, which makes that part of the image
     very bright. A ray that traverses thin bone, such as the area around the
     temples on a lateral X-ray, records a darker gray image."

     

    "Locations of the body closer to the film display greater distinctness and
     clarity in the image compared to those farther away. An X-ray doesn’t
     normally show depth, but a radiologist can use the effect to locate
     fractures on the near or on the distant side of the head. On the AP X-ray,
     the radiating fractures in back of the head, in the occipital bone, are clear
     with well-defined edges."

[Note: The term "occipital bone" is used above, but the lateral x-ray shows the epicenter of "the radiating fractures" in the parietal bone (just below the jutting edge on the rear of the skull). The author notes the "EOP region falls below the bottom edge of the enhanced AP X-ray" so the "radiating fractures" are not radiating from the "low" EOP wound site "on the A-P X-ray".]

    "When the X-ray tube is close to the patient, the image will be distorted
     because of magnification. Points on the body farther away from the film
     show larger than points closer to it. The X-ray tube needs to be at least 
     72 inches away to minimize magnification effects. The portable unit Custer
     and Reed used had its X-ray tube 44 inches from the film. This means,
     for example, that the orbits (the eye sockets) on the AP X-ray are around
     20% larger compared to a given distance on the back of the skull."

    "Based on the HSCA radiologists' measurements, I determined that the
     depression fracture on the back of the skull is 10.6 cm above the point of
     the EOP. I then drew a vertical green line on the lateral X-ray marking 4.5 cm
     below a point that is 2 cm below the skull's vertex. The lower end of this line
     should mark the approximate level of the base of the laceration through
     the brain."

    "Next, I drew a red line marking the low entry path through the head as
     maintained by Humes, Boswell, and Finck."

     

    "The yellow line passes through the center of the green line. The fragments
     coming from the vicinity of the entrance point would fan out into a cone shape.
     (Plus, the fragments' passage creates a temporary cavity, expanding the
     damage.) Damage would occur above and below the centerline, the yellow
     line. This matches the laceration noted in the report."

          -- Excerpts from "Making Sense of the Head X-rays", Joe Durnavich

Quote
Yes, Dr. Mantik's OD findings are indeed hard scientific evidence, and his findings have been confirmed by Dr. Chesser, and several forensic and/or radiology experts have reviewed and endorsed those findings. But, you just keep quoting the erroneous arguments of someone who has no training in radiology or physics and keep ignoring Dr. Mantik's refutation of those arguments, since you have no interest in actually considering the findings on their own merits but are determined to distort, lie, and mislead people about them.

And I notice you the ignored the fact that the white patch does not appear on the AP skull x-ray, which is a physical impossibility if the lateral skull x-rays are unaltered, and the fact that the autopsy photos of the brain and the autopsy skull x-rays severely contradict each other on the amount of missing brain.

Folks, since Organ keeps quoting Speer's critique of Dr. Mantik's research and keeps ignoring Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer, allow me to once again provide the link to Dr. Mantik's reply:

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

The A-P x-ray shows the hinged flap (camera-left) but without the brain and bone that it overlaps in the lateral view.

2
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Oswald's Motive
« Last post by Jon Banks on Today at 01:58:27 AM »
So the “state of mind” means whatever you want it to mean to support your conclusion.

They start from the conclusion that Oswald acted alone and work backwards. Circular arguments every time.
3
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Expectations
« Last post by Jon Banks on Today at 01:50:04 AM »
Quote from: Charles Collin
Do you also agree with her “proof”?   ???

She never claimed on the record to have "proof" but I agree with her circumstantial evidence that she cited in the article below. How gullible do you have to be to think that he learned Russian in the Marines on his own, was allowed to leave the Marines for a superficial reason, and paid for his trip to Russia on his own?   


She admitted that her opinion was based on circumstantial evidence:

"I testified to the fact that I could not prove Lee was a United States agent, but that I thought he was. That I had as much circumstantial evidence that Lee was an agent for the U.S. government as the Dallas Police had that he killed President Kennedy. And I do, I can build a case on it. -

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Marguerite%20C/Item%2023.pdf


In the same article, she mentioned that she began suspecting that Lee was an intelligence agent when he went to Russia. That’s the context that you left out of your original post…


"We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are fingerprints of intelligence."

~Senator Richard Schweiker, The Village Voice, 1975


4
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Expectations
« Last post by Charles Collins on Today at 01:41:22 AM »
Her intuition, if we're going with this explanation, also led her to say that Oswald should have been given a state funeral at Arlington National Cemetery because he killed an obviously sick JFK and saved the country. I mean let's all go to la-la land with Momma Marguerite.


Let’s….  ;D

In the next paragraph Robert Oswald continues with:

“She was convinced right after Jack Ruby’s death that Ruby was not dead. False reports about his illness were circulated deliberately, she told me, to give the government an excuse to remove him from jail. Then he was taken to a hospital and false reports about his decline and death were issued. Another man’s body was buried in Ruby’s grave, she said, and Ruby himself was then freed to complete his next assignment - perhaps another assassination.”


5
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Expectations
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on Today at 01:23:24 AM »

 :D


Do you also agree with her “proof”?   ???
Her intuition, if we're going with this explanation, also led her to say that Oswald should have been given a state funeral at Arlington National Cemetery because he killed an obviously sick JFK and saved the country. I mean let's all go to la-la land with Momma Marguerite.
6
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Expectations
« Last post by Charles Collins on Today at 01:13:55 AM »
Her intuition was correct. The government typically doesn’t admit that someone is an intelligence asset.

She was aware that Lee didn’t officially give up his US citizenship and was correct that his approved leave from the Marines was unusual.

She was aware that he couldn’t afford to travel to Russia in his own.

She also likely knew that he learned Russian in the Marines which was also was unusual at the time.

So regardless of her personality issues, she had pretty good intuition and knew her son better than you or I…


 :D


Do you also agree with her “proof”?   ???
7
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Oswald's Motive
« Last post by Charles Collins on Today at 01:04:48 AM »
Speaking of different situations. Nobody had to try to prove that Ruby did it.


They had to prove that it was “Ruby” who did it, otherwise he would have been released.


Temporary Insanity
If the defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity for the criminal offense, but regains mental competence at the time of prosecution, the defendant is released after the verdict is rendered.



https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/6-1-the-insanity-defense/
8
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Expectations
« Last post by Jon Banks on Today at 12:47:56 AM »

Marguerite had “proof.” According to Robert Oswald (page 216 of “Lee”):


“Naturally, she said, governments always deny that any secret agent is a secret agent, and therefore the State Department’s refusal to admit that Lee was on a secret mission proves that he was.”


That none of her three children wanted her at the Thanksgiving get together in 1962 and didn’t tell her about it or invite her speaks volumes to me.

Her intuition was correct. The government typically doesn’t admit that someone is an intelligence asset.

She was aware that Lee didn’t officially give up his US citizenship and was correct that his approved leave from the Marines was unusual.

She was aware that he couldn’t afford to travel to Russia in his own.

She also likely knew that he learned Russian in the Marines which was also was unusual at the time.

So regardless of her personality issues, she had pretty good intuition and knew her son better than you or I…
9
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Expectations
« Last post by Charles Collins on Today at 12:37:21 AM »
So many amateur psychiatrists on this forum.

I’m not seeing the problem with her quote that Charles cited honestly. Also, she believed that her son was a spy or intelligence asset when he went to Russia so maybe she wasn’t rattled by the headlines for that reason.

I’m not arguing that she was Mom of the year but a mom who believes her son is innocent even if he’s accused of killing the President is normal behavior for mothers who typically love their son’s unconditionally.

With that said, I do think LHO being raised by a single-mom and moving around a lot as a kid affected him mentally and emotionally. But that alone doesn’t make someone a killer or an assassin.


Marguerite had “proof.” According to Robert Oswald (page 216 of “Lee”):


“Naturally, she said, governments always deny that any secret agent is a secret agent, and therefore the State Department’s refusal to admit that Lee was on a secret mission proves that he was.”


That none of her three children wanted her at the Thanksgiving get together in 1962 and didn’t tell her about it or invite her speaks volumes to me.
10
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Expectations
« Last post by Jon Banks on Today at 12:03:02 AM »
So many amateur psychiatrists on this forum.

I’m not seeing the problem with her quote that Charles cited honestly. Also, she believed that her son was a spy or intelligence asset when he went to Russia so maybe she wasn’t rattled by the headlines for that reason.

"I felt quite sure at that time, that he was in Russia working for the American government”.


http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Marguerite%20C/Item%2023.pdf


I’m not arguing that she was Mom of the year but a mom who believes her son is innocent even if he’s accused of killing the President is normal behavior for mothers who typically love their sons unconditionally.

With that said, I do think LHO being raised by a single-mom and moving around a lot as a kid affected him mentally and emotionally. But that alone doesn’t make someone a killer or an assassin.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Mobile View