Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
Key and revealing information about the cover-up surfaced when the ARRB interviewed autopsy x-ray technician Jerrol Custer. Custer's testimony proves that the plotters were already exploring ways to produce altered skull x-rays the day after the autopsy.

Custer told the ARRB that the morning after the assassination, he was called into the radiology suite by Dr. John Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist, and was told to tape some metal fragments to skull bones and x-ray them. Custer x-rayed them with the same machine, at the same distance, that he used the night before during the autopsy. Custer stated that Ebersole said these x-rays would be used to make a bust of JFK. Custer added that Dr. Ebersole suggested that he “should forget” everything he was about to see:

A: The next morning I took them.

Q: And where did you take those X-rays?

A: In the main department, in a private room, with a portable X-ray unit.

Q: Was it the same x-ray unit that was used m to take the autopsy -

A: Yes, sir. The same distance.
 
Q: And what was the purpose of taking these x-rays?

A: I was told by Dr. Ebersole that they were to be taken to make measurements, to make a bust of President Kennedy.

Q: What did you do when you took the x-rays? What were the procedures? How did you go about taking them?

A: All I did was place the bone fragments on the film, and I made different exposures at different distances.

Q: Did Dr. Ebersole say anything to you about metal fragments?

A: He gave me three or four different metal fragments, varying in size. And he asked me to tape them to the bones. . . .

Q: Let me try asking you one question, just to make sure that the record is clear on this. Did Dr. Ebersole ask you to tape the metal fragments to the bone after he had returned from the White House? Are you able to say with certainty?

A: Absolutely. As soon as he walked in, that’s the first thing he said. “I want these bone fragments x-rayed with metal fragments taped”. . . .

Q: Is there any question in your mind whether you, in fact, taped metal fragments to the bones?

A: Absolutely no question at all in my mind. . . .

Q: Did Dr. Ebersole ever subsequently explain to you the purpose for taping metal fragments to the bones to be -

A: No, he didn’t. He just stated to me, when he brought the film -- the bone fragments and the metal fragments to me, that he had just come back from the White House after being debriefed.

Q: And what did he say about that debriefing?

A: WelI, he just said that he was debriefed by the Secret Service. And that was it.
High-ranking people had talked to him. And he suggested to me that everything that I see from now on, I should forget. (“Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer,” ARRB, Transcript of Proceedings, October 28, 1997, pp. 143-146)


Obviously, taping bullet fragments to skull bones and then x-raying the bones had nothing to do with making a bust of JFK. Ultimately, the plotters opted not to use these x-rays because they realized that the x-rays could be altered via darkroom techniques that would be virtually impossible to detect at the time.

Scientific proof of the alteration was not discovered until Dr. David Mantik performed optical density (OD) measurements on the skull x-rays in the 1990s. Dr. Mantik discovered that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that the white patch in the lower rear parietal-occipital area is a physical impossibility for a human skull.

Dr. Mantik discovered that the 6.5 mm object was ghosted over a somewhat smaller genuine bullet fragment and a tiny bullet fragment. The largest of the two fragments is an irregular and jagged fragment measuring 2.0 mm at its narrowest point and 2.5 mm at its widest point, and measuring right around 6.3 mm in height. The tiny fragment is roughly circular and has a diameter of about 0.25 mm.

The density of these two genuine metal fragments is far less than the impossibly density of the 6.5 mm object as established by its OD measurements. The density of the two fragments is consistent with the density of metal fragments, whereas the 6.5 mm object's density is a physical impossibility if the object is metallic, proving that it is a ghosted image.

Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate how the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP skull x-ray. The 6.5 mm object does not appear on the lateral skull x-rays, further absolute proof that the object is not metallic.

BTW, when Dr. Mantik read Custer’s ARRB testimony, he contacted Custer and was able to interview him at length. Custer reaffirmed his ARRB testimony in every detail.

It's truly amazing what you accept as proof. 30 year old recollections from an x-ray technician don't prove anything. Even if true, the conclusions you draw from his statement are highly illogical. You assume every unexplained event has sinister connotations.
32
In addition to my previous reply to these comments, I should add that I notice that you snipped and ignored the facts I presented regarding the tie knot and the SBT. Just to refresh your memory:

The SBT foundationally requires that the supposed magic bullet at least nicked the left edge of the tie knot.

Even the WC acknowledged that the tie knot was positioned directly over the shirt slits. So, if a bullet exited the shirt slits, as claimed by the SBT, it would have had to tear through the tie knot. This is why the FBI produced an evidence photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the knot.

If this bullet did not tear through the tie knot, then it would have had to at least nick the knot's left edge, which is what the WC claimed, but (1) the nick was not on the knot's left edge, and (2) the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the shirt's collar band before and during the motorcade, as we know from numerous photos.

I've documented all of these facts in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing

It's interesting: You claim that the WC gave us "the definitive account" of the assassination, but you contradict what the WC said on this issue because you've done so little reading on the JFK case.


Also, it cannot be emphasized enough that the SBT collapsed the moment we learned that the tie had no hole through it, not through the knot and not through any other part of the tie. The FBI doggedly resisted allowing researchers to view or obtain high-quality images of the tie.

As mentioned, at one point the FBI produced a misleading evidence photo that showed the knot twisted in such a way as to make it appear that the nick was in the middle of the knot in order to lead the viewer to think that a bullet had gone through the knot and had exited in the middle of it.

As my above-linked article proves, abundant photographic evidence shows that Kennedy's tie knot was squarely centered in the middle of the collar band before and during the motorcade. Thus, any bullet that exited the shirt slits could not have avoided tearing through the middle part of the knot.

The SBT also collapsed when it was established that the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot but was visibly inward from the knot's left edge. This makes perfect sense because we have known for years that the nick was made by one of the Parkland ER nurses while the nurses hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing. Dr. Carrico noted that he saw no nick in the tie or slits in the shirt below the collar band when the nurses began to cut away Kennedy's clothing.

Of course, the fact that no bullet could have exited the shirt slits without tearing a hole through the tie also makes perfect sense in light of the ARRB and other disclosures that reveal that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point and that men around the autopsy table could see the back-wound probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity.

Dr. Finck, a board-certified forensic pathologist, did the probing. The idea that he ram-rodded the probe so hard and so ineptly that he tore a false passage to the lining of the chest cavity, as one WC apologist has speculated, is beyond absurd. The probe had a blunt end, a rounded end. It was not sharp at all. Even if Finck had blunderingly pushed the probe with all of his strength, it is doubtful he could have torn such a passage, even if he had been trying to do so. Moreover, as James Jenkins noted, the probe was pushing up against the chest-cavity lining at a point well below the throat wound.

These facts have been known for many years, but once again you guys simply refuse to face them because they destroy the preposterous SBT myth.

Are you ever going to address the facts I present in my article "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"?

Pointing out that the SBT does not require that the bullet passed through the knot is not a refutation of the WCR, although the probability is that the bullet did get a piece of that knot. Your silly interpretation of the evidence does not trump the WCR.

The fact the probe could not pass through the bullet channel is not an indication that the bullet only penetrated a few inches into the back, which is ludicrous on the face of it. Only amateurs such as yourself would conclude that. You ignore the fact that the position JFK was in on the autopsy table was not the position he was in when the bullet struck. His elbow was on the side of the car which changes the position of the muscle group of the shoulders. You also ignore the effects that rigor mortis would have on the body.

AI definition of rigor mortis:

Rigor mortis is the postmortem stiffening of muscles caused by the depletion of cellular energy (ATP), which prevents muscle relaxation.
Rigor mortis occurs after death when the body can no longer produce adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the energy molecule required for muscles to relax. In living muscles, contraction happens when actin and myosin filaments slide together, and relaxation requires ATP to detach these filaments. After death, ATP production ceases, calcium ions flood the muscle fibers, and actin-myosin cross-bridges remain locked, causing the muscles to stiffen.
.
Onset and Progression

Rigor mortis typically begins in the small muscles of the face, particularly around the eyes and mouth, within 1–2 hours after death. It then spreads to the hands, arms, and larger muscles of the legs and torso. Peak stiffness usually occurs 6–12 hours postmortem, and the process gradually resolves over 24–48 hours as muscle tissue decomposes through autolysis, where enzymes break down the actin-myosin complexes

.
33
In addition to my previous reply to these comments, I should add that I notice that you snipped and ignored the facts I presented regarding the tie knot and the SBT. Just to refresh your memory:

The SBT foundationally requires that the supposed magic bullet at least nicked the left edge of the tie knot.

Even the WC acknowledged that the tie knot was positioned directly over the shirt slits. So, if a bullet exited the shirt slits, as claimed by the SBT, it would have had to tear through the tie knot. This is why the FBI produced an evidence photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the knot.

If this bullet did not tear through the tie knot, then it would have had to at least nick the knot's left edge, which is what the WC claimed, but (1) the nick was not on the knot's left edge, and (2) the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the shirt's collar band before and during the motorcade, as we know from numerous photos.

I've documented all of these facts in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing

It's interesting: You claim that the WC gave us "the definitive account" of the assassination, but you contradict what the WC said on this issue because you've done so little reading on the JFK case.


Also, it cannot be emphasized enough that the SBT collapsed the moment we learned that the tie had no hole through it, not through the knot and not through any other part of the tie. The FBI doggedly resisted allowing researchers to view or obtain high-quality images of the tie.

As mentioned, at one point the FBI produced a misleading evidence photo that showed the knot twisted in such a way as to make it appear that the nick was in the middle of the knot in order to lead the viewer to think that a bullet had gone through the knot and had exited in the middle of it.

As my above-linked article proves, abundant photographic evidence shows that Kennedy's tie knot was squarely centered in the middle of the collar band before and during the motorcade. Thus, any bullet that exited the shirt slits could not have avoided tearing through the middle part of the knot.

The SBT also collapsed when it was established that the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot but was visibly inward from the knot's left edge. This makes perfect sense because we have known for years that the nick was made by one of the Parkland ER nurses while the nurses hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing. Dr. Carrico noted that he saw no nick in the tie or slits in the shirt below the collar band when the nurses began to cut away Kennedy's clothing.

Of course, the fact that no bullet could have exited the shirt slits without tearing a hole through the tie also makes perfect sense in light of the ARRB and other disclosures that reveal that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point and that men around the autopsy table could see the back-wound probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity.

Dr. Finck, a board-certified forensic pathologist, did the probing. The idea that he ram-rodded the probe so hard and so ineptly that he tore a false passage to the lining of the chest cavity, as one WC apologist has speculated, is beyond absurd. The probe had a blunt end, a rounded end. It was not sharp at all. Even if Finck had blunderingly pushed the probe with all of his strength, it is doubtful he could have torn such a passage, even if he had been trying to do so. Moreover, as James Jenkins noted, the probe was pushing up against the chest-cavity lining at a point well below the throat wound.

These facts have been known for many years, but once again you guys simply refuse to face them because they destroy the preposterous SBT myth.

Are you ever going to address the facts I present in my article "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"?

I've already told you I have no obligation to respond to each and every statement you make. Your posts are so long winded and your nonsense so voluminous that refuting every bit of it would be a full time job. I'm retired and I don't allow anyone to assign me work. I'll pick and choose what I respond to and a lack of response to any point you've tried to make should not be interpreted as acceptance.

Your strategy seems to be swamp post so much crap and claim victory if someone chooses not to take the time to refute each and every item. What your posts lack in quality you try to make up for with quantity. It's just not working for you.
34
Lance, I'm going to give a summary comment on the Tippit case and I would like you to explain if you classify it as "lunatic fringe" and say why. But first, a comment on the real issue you raise of what is the difference between a legitimate differing argument or interpretation of evidence, and "wacky" territory. I have an analogy here you might find instructive. It appears in a book I wrote a couple decades ago, "Showdown at Big Sandy", about a Bible college in east Texas I attended for two years in the 1970s. I was discussing the phenomenon of "cults", which is in some ways parallel to the definitional questions you raise here. What is the difference between a religion one does not personally believe, but which one does not regard it sociologically as a "cult"? At the time I wrote the book, one of the leading (supposedly) authorities on cults was Walter Martin, who wrote a book called "Kingdom of the Cults". He wrote from a conservative Christian perspective, and detailed an encyclopedic taxonomy of all sorts of various offbeat and idiosyncratic religious groups with which American history has been filled, part of America's claim to fame.   

The problem was in among the extensive cult listings in his book, Kingdom of the Cults, he listed Unitarians. Unitarians?? I found that odd. As I noted at the time, Unitarians have produced four American presidents and too many famous scientists to count--how on earth did he have them defined as a "cult"? Well, he gave his reasons, three reasons. Here is what, in his view, made Unitarians a "cult", and I am not making this up: Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity, they do not believe in hell, and they replace the authority of the Bible with reason. Those three things, said Martin, quite logically make Unitarians a "cult". Obviously Unitarians in America are not a "cult", and it is clear what was going with Martin: he was confusing his definition of "heresy" categories (beliefs different from what he considered correct historic Christian doctrines) with a sociological/behaviorial phenomenon, "cultism", not the same thing, a category confusion.

Greg, give me a bit of time to attempt to respond more thoughtfully to your Tippit scenario. It's 4:30 AM here, and I have six cats yapping for their food.

I have SO MUCH background in religion, and so much evolution of my own beliefs, that the "cult" label is one of my pet peeves. Insofar as what I think the actual Jesus was actually talking about, which I think had way more to do with how you live than what you believe, I have the highest respect for the supposed "cults" of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I think some of their history and beliefs are "not exactly believable," but I also find it hard to believe that the Creator of the universe gives a crap about "correct doctrine." Ditto with the Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants - much that is "not exactly believable." That's why I stopped going to church many years ago; there is literally NO branch of the faith that doesn't require me to at least give lip service to major doctrines that I regard as "not exactly believable." The old saying that one man's ceiling is another man's floor can certainly be adapted in the vein of one man's religion is another man's cult. As Justice Stewart said about obscenity, I know a cult when I see one. (Scientology? Now THAT'S a cult!)
35
Like all Tinfoil Nutters, Lance has been told what to think by the ridiculous Warren Commission Report.
Can this ultimate of blowhards show us even the tiniest detail where he doesn't suck down what the WCR lies about?
Dear Lance - shown us a single instance where you differ from the WCR.

I think Dan must have been placed on earth solely for my benefit, at least insofar as the JFKA is concerned, because once again he unwittingly and witlessly raises an issue that had occurred to me after I had logged off.

I love how, at the lunatic fringe where Dan lurches around, the math works like this:

SUPPORTER OF THE LN NARRATIVE = CREDULOUS FOOL WHO KNOWS NOTHING MORE THAN THE WR AND BLINDLY ACCEPTS IT = PATHETIC WC SHILL

Uh, not exactly.

In fact, nothing but a straw man for Dan to attack because he's got nothing else, just as MTG attacks a straw man of me insisting all CTers are mentally ill. I'm confident MTG and Dan do have several screws loose and cogs askew, but I'll leave the actual diagnosis to a professional like Dr. Niederwacky.  :D :D :D

I had probably read 25 conspiracy-oriented books, maybe more, before I had read one page of the WR. I was posting CT-oriented blather at City Data Forum and elsewhere before I read one page of the WR. I spent almost an entire year reading NOTHING BUT what dedicated CTer Walt Brown had written, including his million-word Chronology, before I had read one page of the WR. I had read Harvey and Lee TWICE before I had read one page of the WR. I had ... well, you get the idea. AS WE SPEAK, I am rereading Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why.

The WC per se means zilch to me. I posted only yesterday in a vein critical of the WR. My original post on THIS thread describes the SBT as the Achilles heel of the LN narrative. I have said that I respect the work of John Orr and his efforts to prove Mafia involvement, which I regard as by far the most plausible CT scenario. Oswald as a dupe of angry anti-Castro types is not implausible.

The WR and all the supporting documentation is simply a body of evidence, that and nothing more. There is nothing sacred about the WR. The LN narrative does not rise or fall with the WR. The LN rises or falls with the evidence, and so far it has stood the test of time. It is the only scenario that fits the definition of a theory - i.e., a well-established explanation supported by the evidence. The only real dents in the LN narrative are the "reasonable" or not-so-reasonable doubts raised about some aspects by those who like to play Oswald defense counsel. As I said, "I don't think Oswald would have been convicted in a criminal trial" is not an explanation or theory.

Dan and MTG play these straw man games precisely because they do occupy the lunatic fringe. MTG's work is so incoherent and internally inconsistent that it's almost spooky, if he really believes what he says and isn't just slinging poop in all directions in the hope that something, anything, will stick. Dan is just an angry blowhard and buffoon; I would like to think this is just a persona he has adopted for its amusement value, but if it's an act it's a pretty convincing one.

"Lance the uninformed WC shill who thinks all CTers are mentally ill?" Not exactly, but he makes a convenient straw man.
36
I remember you dodging it many times. I don't recall you addressing it even once. "I've already answered that" was a favorite dodge of Tony Marsh's on John McAdams' forum. He resorted to it whenever presented with inconvenient facts. He would invariably follow it with "Learn to Google".
Dr. Cyril Wecht scoffed at the theory presented by David Lifton. I can't find the exact quote but it essentially said that you could take a team of the best surgeons in the world and they couldn't perform post-mortem surgery that wouldn't be instantly recognizable by a first year medical student.

In addition to my previous reply to these comments, I should add that I notice that you snipped and ignored the facts I presented regarding the tie knot and the SBT. Just to refresh your memory:

The SBT foundationally requires that the supposed magic bullet at least nicked the left edge of the tie knot.

Even the WC acknowledged that the tie knot was positioned directly over the shirt slits. So, if a bullet exited the shirt slits, as claimed by the SBT, it would have had to tear through the tie knot. This is why the FBI produced an evidence photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the knot.

If this bullet did not tear through the tie knot, then it would have had to at least nick the knot's left edge, which is what the WC claimed, but (1) the nick was not on the knot's left edge, and (2) the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the shirt's collar band before and during the motorcade, as we know from numerous photos.

I've documented all of these facts in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing

It's interesting: You claim that the WC gave us "the definitive account" of the assassination, but you contradict what the WC said on this issue because you've done so little reading on the JFK case.


Also, it cannot be emphasized enough that the SBT collapsed the moment we learned that the tie had no hole through it, not through the knot and not through any other part of the tie. The FBI doggedly resisted allowing researchers to view or obtain high-quality images of the tie.

As mentioned, at one point the FBI produced a misleading evidence photo that showed the knot twisted in such a way as to make it appear that the nick was in the middle of the knot in order to lead the viewer to think that a bullet had gone through the knot and had exited in the middle of it.

As my above-linked article proves, abundant photographic evidence shows that Kennedy's tie knot was squarely centered in the middle of the collar band before and during the motorcade. Thus, any bullet that exited the shirt slits could not have avoided tearing through the middle part of the knot.

The SBT also collapsed when it was established that the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot but was visibly inward from the knot's left edge. This makes perfect sense because we have known for years that the nick was made by one of the Parkland ER nurses while the nurses hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing. Dr. Carrico noted that he saw no nick in the tie or slits in the shirt below the collar band when the nurses began to cut away Kennedy's clothing.

Of course, the fact that no bullet could have exited the shirt slits without tearing a hole through the tie also makes perfect sense in light of the ARRB and other disclosures that reveal that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point and that men around the autopsy table could see the back-wound probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity.

Dr. Finck, a board-certified forensic pathologist, did the probing. The idea that he ram-rodded the probe so hard and so ineptly that he tore a false passage to the lining of the chest cavity, as one WC apologist has speculated, is beyond absurd. The probe had a blunt end, a rounded end. It was not sharp at all. Even if Finck had blunderingly pushed the probe with all of his strength, it is doubtful he could have torn such a passage, even if he had been trying to do so. Moreover, as James Jenkins noted, the probe was pushing up against the chest-cavity lining at a point well below the throat wound.

These facts have been known for many years, but once again you guys simply refuse to face them because they destroy the preposterous SBT myth.

Are you ever going to address the facts I present in my article "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"?

37
That's correct.
Wow. We're agreeing

Obvious. No-one has ever suggested that the limo was the target so you're on safe ground. So I have to agree but I am concerned you might be talking sh£t.[/auote]

You must have missed MTG's take on it from a few days ago. He referred to the limo as a large target.
Quote

Knobhead.

This from somebody who is dumb enough to believe Oswald didn't fire the shots that killed JFK.
38
There is certainly no body of evidence of sufficient integrity to convict Oswald beyond reasonable doubt
of firing shots from a TSBD sixth floor window at President Kennedy inside the time frame laid out in the government's
case.


A ridiculous claim that makes the rest of your diatribe not worth responding to. When one looks at the forensic evidence alone, there should be zero doubt that Oswald was the assassin. Never mind that he immediately fled the scene and about 45 minutes later gunned down a Dallas cop.
39
Key and revealing information about the cover-up surfaced when the ARRB interviewed autopsy x-ray technician Jerrol Custer. Custer's testimony proves that the plotters were already exploring ways to produce altered skull x-rays the day after the autopsy.

Custer told the ARRB that the morning after the assassination, he was called into the radiology suite by Dr. John Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist, and was told to tape some metal fragments to skull bones and x-ray them. Custer x-rayed them with the same machine, at the same distance, that he used the night before during the autopsy. Custer stated that Ebersole said these x-rays would be used to make a bust of JFK. Custer added that Dr. Ebersole suggested that he “should forget” everything he was about to see:

A: The next morning I took them.

Q: And where did you take those X-rays?

A: In the main department, in a private room, with a portable X-ray unit.

Q: Was it the same x-ray unit that was used m to take the autopsy -

A: Yes, sir. The same distance.
 
Q: And what was the purpose of taking these x-rays?

A: I was told by Dr. Ebersole that they were to be taken to make measurements, to make a bust of President Kennedy.

Q: What did you do when you took the x-rays? What were the procedures? How did you go about taking them?

A: All I did was place the bone fragments on the film, and I made different exposures at different distances.

Q: Did Dr. Ebersole say anything to you about metal fragments?

A: He gave me three or four different metal fragments, varying in size. And he asked me to tape them to the bones. . . .

Q: Let me try asking you one question, just to make sure that the record is clear on this. Did Dr. Ebersole ask you to tape the metal fragments to the bone after he had returned from the White House? Are you able to say with certainty?

A: Absolutely. As soon as he walked in, that’s the first thing he said. “I want these bone fragments x-rayed with metal fragments taped”. . . .

Q: Is there any question in your mind whether you, in fact, taped metal fragments to the bones?

A: Absolutely no question at all in my mind. . . .

Q: Did Dr. Ebersole ever subsequently explain to you the purpose for taping metal fragments to the bones to be -

A: No, he didn’t. He just stated to me, when he brought the film -- the bone fragments and the metal fragments to me, that he had just come back from the White House after being debriefed.

Q: And what did he say about that debriefing?

A: WelI, he just said that he was debriefed by the Secret Service. And that was it.
High-ranking people had talked to him. And he suggested to me that everything that I see from now on, I should forget. (“Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer,” ARRB, Transcript of Proceedings, October 28, 1997, pp. 143-146)


Obviously, taping bullet fragments to skull bones and then x-raying the bones had nothing to do with making a bust of JFK. Ultimately, the plotters opted not to use these x-rays because they realized that the x-rays could be altered via darkroom techniques that would be virtually impossible to detect at the time.

Scientific proof of the alteration was not discovered until Dr. David Mantik performed optical density (OD) measurements on the skull x-rays in the 1990s. Dr. Mantik discovered that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that the white patch in the lower rear parietal-occipital area is a physical impossibility for a human skull.

Dr. Mantik discovered that the 6.5 mm object was ghosted over a somewhat smaller genuine bullet fragment and a tiny bullet fragment. The largest of the two fragments is an irregular and jagged fragment measuring 2.0 mm at its narrowest point and 2.5 mm at its widest point, and measuring right around 6.3 mm in height. The tiny fragment is roughly circular and has a diameter of about 0.25 mm.

The density of these two genuine metal fragments is far less than the impossibly density of the 6.5 mm object as established by its OD measurements. The density of the two fragments is consistent with the density of metal fragments, whereas the 6.5 mm object's density is a physical impossibility if the object is metallic, proving that it is a ghosted image.

Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate how the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP skull x-ray. The 6.5 mm object does not appear on the lateral skull x-rays, further absolute proof that the object is not metallic.

BTW, when Dr. Mantik read Custer’s ARRB testimony, he contacted Custer and was able to interview him at length. Custer reaffirmed his ARRB testimony in every detail.
40
Those who defend the obvious lies of the Warren Commission Report need some kind of mental inspection.
It is very possible that you are some kind of extreme lunatic with whom any kind of rational debate is impossible.
Has that ever occurred to you?
Remember - you are like a little child who has had their opinions provided for them. You haven't thought for yourself. You've just swallowed down what you've been told to swallow down.
I've worked for my knowledge and insights.

It's possible that you are just a gigantic loser.

Anyone who can look at the evidence and not conclude Oswald was the assassin ought not to be casting aspersions on the mental capacities of others.

You've been duped by conspiracy proponents over the years into believing myths. You are completely lacking in common sense.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10