LNers Can't Explain the 6.5 mm Object on the JFK AP Skull X-Ray

[Michael T. Griffith]

My point is that the title of this thread is blatantly wrong. Your biased view just doesn’t “like” the explanation.

But you didn't even address the OD measurements in your "explanation." What kind of "explanation" is that? Organ initially compared the known, established science of OD measurement to "seer stones." But, after I documented that OD measurement is a recognized science, he back-peddled and said he wasn't questioning the science, just Mantik's use of it. Okay, Mantik's measurements have been published for years now, yet no scientist has challenged their validity, and the only scientist who did his own OD measurements found that his measurements mirrored Mantik's.

Grasping for anything, WC apologists cite the fact that Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB forensic radiologist, told Doug Horne that he disagreed with Dr. Mantik's research on the autopsy x-rays. Yet, Fitzpatrick failed to offer any explanation for the OD measurements, for the 6.5 mm object, for the white patch, and for the presence of emulsion under the T-shaped inscription on the left lateral x-ray, which is a physical impossibility unless this x-ray is a copy. When Dr. Mantik attempted to engage Fitzpatrick in a discussion on these matters, he declined.

Simply claiming that the 6.5 mm object is an innocent artifact does not explain the object. That is not an "explanation." That is merely a claim. HOW could an object that is perfectly round in 3/4 of its shape be formed on the AP skull x-ray during a presidential autopsy? HOW? Beyond this basic question, there is the glaring issue of the object's size and placement: it is perfectly positioned over the image of a smaller, genuine fragment, and it is exactly 6.5 mm in size, the precise diameter of the ammo that Oswald allegedly used. The least implausible of Sturdivan's three theories--that a stray metal disk somehow ended up on the table just before the AP x-ray was taken--is not only unprecedented (no one has yet identified another case where such a far-fetched scenario occurred), but it requires one to believe that the radiologist or his assistant spotted the disk before they took the lateral x-rays were taken but did not retake the AP x-ray after spotting the disk, a preposterous idea.

The conspiratorial explanation is a credible, scientifically supported explanation because it not only identifies the 6.5 mm object as an artifact that was created intentionally over the image of a smaller, genuine fragment, but it includes a proven method by which the object could have been placed there; it explains the OD measurements; and it provides a logical explanation for why the autopsy doctors failed to mention the object in their report and in their repeated testimonies. THAT is an explanation.

[Charles Collins]

But you didn't even address the OD measurements in your "explanation." What kind of "explanation" is that? Organ initially compared the known, established science of OD measurement to "seer stones." But, after I documented that OD measurement is a recognized science, he back-peddled and said he wasn't questioning the science, just Mantik's use of it. Okay, Mantik's measurements have been published for years now, yet no scientist has challenged their validity, and the only scientist who did his own OD measurements found that his measurements mirrored Mantik's.

Grasping for anything, WC apologists cite the fact that Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB forensic radiologist, told Doug Horne that he disagreed with Dr. Mantik's research on the autopsy x-rays. Yet, Fitzpatrick failed to offer any explanation for the OD measurements, for the 6.5 mm object, for the white patch, and for the presence of emulsion under the T-shaped inscription on the left lateral x-ray, which is a physical impossibility unless this x-ray is a copy. When Dr. Mantik attempted to engage Fitzpatrick in a discussion on these matters, he declined.

Simply claiming that the 6.5 mm object is an innocent artifact does not explain the object. That is not an "explanation." That is merely a claim. HOW could an object that is perfectly round in 3/4 of its shape be formed on the AP skull x-ray during a presidential autopsy? HOW? Beyond this basic question, there is the glaring issue of the object's size and placement: it is perfectly positioned over the image of a smaller, genuine fragment, and it is exactly 6.5 mm in size, the precise diameter of the ammo that Oswald allegedly used. The least implausible of Sturdivan's three theories--that a stray metal disk somehow ended up on the table just before the AP x-ray was taken--is not only unprecedented (no one has yet identified another case where such a far-fetched scenario occurred), but it requires one to believe that the radiologist or his assistant spotted the disk before they took the lateral x-rays were taken but did not retake the AP x-ray after spotting the disk, a preposterous idea.

The conspiratorial explanation is a credible, scientifically supported explanation because it not only identifies the 6.5 mm object as an artifact that was created intentionally over the image of a smaller, genuine fragment, but it includes a proven method by which the object could have been placed there; it explains the OD measurements; and it provides a logical explanation for why the autopsy doctors failed to mention the object in their report and in their repeated testimonies. THAT is an explanation.

But you didn't even address the OD measurements in your "explanation.


There is no reason to address Mantik’s work. The answer was explained to you in an earlier post. Here is a repeat. I have underlined some of this for emphasis.


In 1997, the ARRB discovered during its deposition of Jerrol Custer, a Bethesda Hospital X-ray technician who was on duty that night, that Dr. Ebersole had indeed seen Mantik’s alleged “6-millimeter object” during the autopsy - a “half circle that appears to be the lightest part of the film […] in the right orbital superior” - after Custer pointed it out to him as a possible bullet fragment. This suggests that the “6.5-millimeter object” already appeared on the X-ray before the body was dissected and was not added later, as Mantik suggests.76 Ebersole dismissed it offhand, telling Custer it was an artifact.77 If Custer is right, Ebersole would presumably have said the same thing to the pathologists if they inquired, which explains why no mention of it was made in the autopsy report and why it was easily forgotten until the HSCA’s Forensic Pathology Panel questioned them about it 15-years later. Like the “white spot” at the back of JFK’s head, the “6.5-millimeter object” is little more than a distraction caused by circular logic. What is missing here is not just a motive, but also the signature hypercompetence of the JFK buffs’ all-powerful enemy. Instead, Mantik offers us a one-time ad hoc explanation to suggest that, rather than being devilishly cunning, the men who killed Kennedy were in fact wildly incompetent.78 We can therefore safely conclude that the “object” on the X-ray is just what many experts said it was, an artifact, and that Mantik is seeing monsters in his bedroom closet.

An aside that I think demonstrates what I think about Mantik’s work:

True story:

In the mid seventies, a professor at a highly acclaimed and prestigious major engineering university, at the beginning of each new quarter, provided “mathematical proof” to the new students, using the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe, that the exact center of the universe (where everything in existence began) was located at a specific location (which “just happened” to be a monument in the downtown area of the professor’s small home town. In all his years of teaching, no one ever disproved the professor’s theory. The professor used this demonstration to show that mathematics can be used to “prove” a lot of things.


I think of Mantik’s work with the same skepticism that I would think of the professor’s “proof” of the location of the center of the universe.

Michel Gagne has given a reasonable explanation that makes sense to me. I don’t expect that you will ever even entertain the thought that he could be correct. If you really want to find some answers to your unending questions, try considering that the standard historical model (aka: WC Report) could possibly be correct. And begin your research anew with an open mind to this possibility. You just might be surprised…

[Michael T. Griffith]

I went back and checked Custer's 10/28/97 ARRB interview. It is not clear that Custer was referring to the 6.5 mm object when he discussed Ebersole's reference to an artifact. Custer's actual words suggest that he called Ebersole's attention to an "area" that contained fragments, i.e., the right frontal region, and that when he said that Ebersole "called it an artifact," the "it" was the area, not an individual fragment.

Importantly, Custer said the area was behind the superior right orbital ridge (i.e., just above the right socket), which is right next to the cloud of fragments. However, the extant AP skull x-ray shows the 6.5 mm object to be on the back of the skull, on the rear outer table. Custer was an experienced x-ray technician, and it seems unlikely that he would have mistaken an object behind the right orbital ridge for an object on the rear outer table of the skull.

Plus, Custer's comments later in the interview suggest that Custer was using the term "fragment" to refer to the cloud of fragments in the right frontal part of the skull, near the top of the skull; this cloud of fragments is the collection of metal flecks that constitutes most of the high fragment trail on the extant skull x-rays.

As many people sometimes do, Custer may have intermittently used a singular noun, in this case "fragment," as a collective noun to describe a collection of the same kinds of objects, in this case the cloud of tiny fragments in the right frontal region. If Ebersole identified the right-frontal cloud of fragments as an artifact, this would explain why the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail, and why the autopsy doctors never mentioned the high fragment trail in their WC testimony, even though the high fragment trail, with its huge cloud of fragments in the right frontal region, is impossible to miss.

Later in the interview, Custer appears to return to Ebersole's artifact conclusion and seems to challenge it by stating his opinion that it was unlikely that the numerous metal flecks in the right frontal region were an artifact. The interviewer adds context by asking Custer what is holding those fragments if there's no brain in that area on the x-rays:

Q: Are you able to identify any metal fragments in the head?

A: Sure.

Q: And you're pointing toward the flecks?

A: Towards the black area. Towards the top of the skull. Here. That's the only way that can be, this fragment. There's no way an artifact will show up like that.

Q: Now, what is supporting those metal fragments, if there is no brain in the cranium? Where are they resting?

A: They have to be resting on the bone itelf somewhere. That's the only thing I can possibly think of, unless there's enough tissue there in that region to hold them. (p. 133)

Q: Let me draw your attention to what appear to be some flecks in what I would say is above the right eye socket.

A: Mm-hmm.

Q: -- and going towards the back. Are you able to identify whether those flecks arc artifacts or metal fragments?

A: They are metal fragments. Artifacts do not come in an irregular form like this. Not in that - in that traveling projection like that. It just doesn’t. Not that many in that one area. (p. 135)

With these statements in mind, let's go back and read Custer's comment about Ebersole's artifact conclusion in its full context:

Q: Can you identify in the X-ray any brain shadow?

A: No.There’s no brain shadow that I can see. Maybe portions - very small. But this is all empty. Anything -

Q: Do you know where the bullet fragment was located on the body?

A: Right orbital ridge, superior.

Q: How do you know it was in the right orbital ridge, rather than at the back of the skull?

A: Because of the protruding eyeball.

Q: Did you see the fragment removed?

A: No, I did not. Can I inject something here? This area, I pointed out to Dr. Ebersole as a fragment. And he called it an artifact. I said, "How about these fragments up here?" This is when he told me to mind my own business. (p. 115)

One can easily read "this area . . . a fragment" and "these fragments up here" as referring to the same thing: the cloud of metal flecks in the right frontal region near the top of the skull.

When Custer was specifically asked about the location of the "semi-circular" large "metal fragment," he said he could not identify its location on the x-ray he was being shown (p. 133). This suggests that he may not have been referring to this object when he mentioned Ebersole's artifact conclusion, since he was clear that that the area he pointed out to Ebersole was behind the right orbital ridge.

As mentioned, if this interpretation is correct, it clears up a number of issues. It explains why the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail. It explains why the autopsy doctors said nothing about the high fragment trail in their WC testimony. If Ebersole told them that the right-frontal cloud of fragments was an artifact, their failure to say anything about it makes sense.

Humes mentioned that he saw 30-40 tiny fragments on the skull x-rays, but he said those fragments ran from the EOP to a point just above the right eye, several inches lower than the cloud of fragments on the extant x-rays. Finck reported, in writing, to General Blumberg that he saw the same low fragment trail. However, no such fragment trail appears on the extant x-rays.

I should add that Dr. Mantik and Custer met several times to discuss the autopsy and the autopsy x-rays, and during all those discussions, never once did Custer claim that Ebersole identified the 6.5 mm object as an artifact during the autopsy.

Finally, allow me to address Jerry Organ's erroneous claim that Oswald did not speak Russian well. Organ is making this bogus claim because the "Oswald" who called the Soviet Consulate in Mexico City spoke "terrible" Russian, "hardly recognizable" Russian.

Mrs. Natalie Ray, a native of Stalingrad, Russia, met Oswald after his return from the Soviet Union. She told the WC that Oswald's conversational Russian was "just perfect." She complimented Oswald while speaking in her own broken English: "I said, 'How come you speak so good Russian? I been here so long and still don't speak very well English." When WC attorney Liebeler ask her, "You thought he spoke Russian better than you would expect a person to be able to speak Russian after only living...there only 3 years?", she replied, "Yes; I really did."

George de Mohrenschildt, another native Russian speaker, praised Oswald's skills in the Russian language. He told the WC that Oswald "had remarkable fluency in Russian.... he preferred to speak Russian than English any time. He always would switch from English to Russian."

Peter Gregory, a native of Chita, Siberia, told the WC that "I thought that Lee Oswald spoke [Russian] with a Polish accent, that is why I asked him if he was of Polish descent. . . . It would be rather unusual . . . for a person who lived in the Soviet Union for 17 months that he would speak so well that a native Russian would not be sure whether he was born in that country or not."

Gregory's son, Peter Paul Gregory, was a graduate student in Russian language and literature at the University of Oklahoma in the early 1960s. He conversed with Oswald and later told the WC that Oswald "was completely fluent. He understood more than I did and he could express any idea . . . that he wanted to in Russian."

Other witnesses spoke of Oswald's good command of Russian, including George Bouhe, Mrs. Teofil Meller, Elena Hall, and Mrs. Dymitruk.

So the "Oswald" who called the Soviet Consulate in MC clearly was not the real Oswald.

[Charles Collins]

I went back and checked Custer's 10/28/97 ARRB interview. It is not clear that Custer was referring to the 6.5 mm object when he discussed Ebersole's reference to an artifact. Custer's actual words suggest that he called Ebersole's attention to an "area" that contained fragments, i.e., the right frontal region, and that when he said that Ebersole "called it an artifact," the "it" was the area, not an individual fragment.

Importantly, Custer said the area was behind the superior right orbital ridge (i.e., just above the right socket), which is right next to the cloud of fragments. However, the extant AP skull x-ray shows the 6.5 mm object to be on the back of the skull, on the rear outer table. Custer was an experienced x-ray technician, and it seems unlikely that he would have mistaken an object behind the right orbital ridge for an object on the rear outer table of the skull.

Plus, Custer's comments later in the interview suggest that Custer was using the term "fragment" to refer to the cloud of fragments in the right frontal part of the skull, near the top of the skull; this cloud of fragments is the collection of metal flecks that constitutes most of the high fragment trail on the extant skull x-rays.

As many people sometimes do, Custer may have intermittently used a singular noun, in this case "fragment," as a collective noun to describe a collection of the same kinds of objects, in this case the cloud of tiny fragments in the right frontal region. If Ebersole identified the right-frontal cloud of fragments as an artifact, this would explain why the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail, and why the autopsy doctors never mentioned the high fragment trail in their WC testimony, even though the high fragment trail, with its huge cloud of fragments in the right frontal region, is impossible to miss.

Later in the interview, Custer appears to return to Ebersole's artifact conclusion and seems to challenge it by stating his opinion that it was unlikely that the numerous metal flecks in the right frontal region were an artifact. The interviewer adds context by asking Custer what is holding those fragments if there's no brain in that area on the x-rays:

With these statements in mind, let's go back and read Custer's comment about Ebersole's artifact conclusion in its full context:

One can easily read "this area . . . a fragment" and "these fragments up here" as referring to the same thing: the cloud of metal flecks in the right frontal region near the top of the skull.

When Custer was specifically asked about the location of the "semi-circular" large "metal fragment," he said he could not identify its location on the x-ray he was being shown (p. 133). This suggests that he may not have been referring to this object when he mentioned Ebersole's artifact conclusion, since he was clear that that the area he pointed out to Ebersole was behind the right orbital ridge.

As mentioned, if this interpretation is correct, it clears up a number of issues. It explains why the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail. It explains why the autopsy doctors said nothing about the high fragment trail in their WC testimony. If Ebersole told them that the right-frontal cloud of fragments was an artifact, their failure to say anything about it makes sense.

Humes mentioned that he saw 30-40 tiny fragments on the skull x-rays, but he said those fragments ran from the EOP to a point just above the right eye, several inches lower than the cloud of fragments on the extant x-rays. Finck reported, in writing, to General Blumberg that he saw the same low fragment trail. However, no such fragment trail appears on the extant x-rays.

I should add that Dr. Mantik and Custer met several times to discuss the autopsy and the autopsy x-rays, and during all those discussions, never once did Custer claim that Ebersole identified the 6.5 mm object as an artifact during the autopsy.

Has if occurred to you that Custer didn’t look at the X-ray and say that the “6.5-millimeter object” wasn’t there during the autopsy?

Again, the title of your thread is blatantly wrong.  There is no need for anyone to try to put words into Custer’s mouth if we believe that the artifact was indeed on the X-ray during the autopsy.l

[Steve M. Galbraith]

One of the three KGB agents/Soviet Embassy officials who say they met Oswald in Mexico City, Oleg Nechiporenko, explained in his book "Passport to Assassination" that Oswald "switched [from speaking English] over to broken Russian, in which the rest of the conversation was conducted, except in a few instances when Oswald experienced difficulty in expressing certain thoughts in Russian and inserted English words."

And: "Our meeting had been conducted primarily in Russian but Oswald, possibly from the strain of being overly excited, often experienced difficulties in finding the proper Russian word and would switch to English. His pronunciation was bad, and he really mangled the grammar....."

It seems that Oswald, for whatever reason, was having problems speaking Russian while in Mexico City. Thus the explanation for the "broken Russian" that the CIA translator Tarasoff heard. And all three men were emphatic in saying the man they met was Oswald not an impostor.

[Michael T. Griffith]

But you didn't even address the OD measurements in your "explanation."

There is no reason to address Mantik’s work. The answer was explained to you in an earlier post. Here is a repeat. I have underlined some of this for emphasis. [RIDICULOUS "ANSWER" SNIPPED]

And I already proved that that "answer" makes no sense and raises even more questions than Sturdivan's acid-drop and stray-metal-disk theories, questions that you ducked by complaining that they were "unanswerable."

Furthermore, this supposed "answer" does not even mention Dr. Mantik's and Dr. Chesser's mutually corroborating sets of dozens of OD measurements. You guys are so blinded by your lone-gunman dogma that you can't see the forest for the trees. You constantly paste haughty, pretentious "answers" that are riddled with errors and comical illogic.

Let's look at another gem of silliness and error in Gagne's pseudo-academic answer:

We can therefore safely conclude that the “object” on the X-ray is just what many experts said it was, an artifact, and that Mantik is seeing monsters in his bedroom closet.

What?! For your and Gagne's information, until Larry Sturdivan came out with his 2005 book, not a single lone-gunman theorist claimed that the 6.5 mm object was an artifact but adamantly declared that it was a bullet fragment. I recall many debates with WC apologists in online forums, before Sturdivan's book was published, where lone-gunman theorists insisted over and over again that "of course" the object was a bullet fragment because, gee, all the experts on the Clark Panel, on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel, and on the HSCA's medical panel said it was.

But after Sturdivan, to his great credit, explained why it was a physical impossibility for the 6.5 mm object to be a bullet fragment (using the same argument that skeptics had been making for years, by the way), WC apologists slowly began to adopt his position. WC critics have long argued that the object had to be an artifact, and now, because of Sturdivan, LNers agree. The only difference is that we say the artifact was added to the AP x-ray after the autopsy, whereas you say that somehow, some way, by a means you can't explain, the artifact was accidentally, and thus innocently, added to the AP x-ray.

No one is putting words in Custer's mouth. His own words clearly suggest that he was using "fragment" as a collective noun to refer to the cloud of tiny fragments near the right orbit and that he was associating Ebersole's artifact conclusion with that fragment cloud. Even David Von Pein, of all people, says, "I'm not 100% sure Jerrol Custer was referring to the now-famous 6.5 mm object." When one read Custer's words, one sees that it is entirely possible that Custer was not referring to the 6.5 mm object and that "artifact" referred to the area of the fragment cloud that Custer pointed out to Ebersole.

As I mentioned, this would explain why the autopsy doctors, incredibly, said nothing about the fragment cloud/high fragment trail in the autopsy report or in their WC testimony. It would also explain why Ebersole said nothing about the 6.5 mm object to the HSCA and why he refused to discuss it with Dr. Mantik.

And I repeat that in all the numerous times that Dr. Mantik spoke with Custer about the autopsy and the x-rays, Custer never once claimed that Ebersole identified a single circular/6.5 mm object as an artifact during the autopsy.

Here's another example of pitiful blindness and bias, this one from Steve Galbraith in his most recent reply:

Steve Galbraith: And: "Our meeting had been conducted primarily in Russian but Oswald, possibly from the strain of being overly excited, often experienced difficulties in finding the proper Russian word and would switch to English. His pronunciation was bad, and he really mangled the grammar....."

It seems that Oswald, for whatever reason, was having problems speaking Russian while in Mexico City.

OR, the man spoke such horrible Russian because he was not the real Lee Harvey Oswald! But, no, the same Oswald who was cool, calm, and collected when challenged by a gun-toting police officer less than 2 minutes after supposedly just having shot the president of the U.S.--according to you, this same Oswald was so "overly excited" while talking on the phone to get a visa that he temporarily lost his fluency in Russian and spoke in such bad Russian that he couldn't even pronounce his words correctly and "mangled" the grammar.

Thus the explanation for the "broken Russian" that the CIA translator Tarasoff heard. And all three men were emphatic in saying the man they met was Oswald not an impostor.

UH-HUH. Well, all the CIA had to do was produce the surveillance photo of the man who entered the Cuban Consulate. And the FBI agents who viewed the photos and heard the recording of the supposed Oswald said the man was not Oswald, as Hoover informed LBJ:

Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above, and have listened to a recording of his voice. These special agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Charles Collins]

And I already proved that that "answer" makes no sense and raises even more questions than Sturdivan's acid-drop and stray-metal-disk theories, questions that you ducked by complaining that they were "unanswerable."

Furthermore, this supposed "answer" does not even mention Dr. Mantik's and Dr. Chesser's mutually corroborating sets of dozens of OD measurements. You guys are so blinded by your lone-gunman dogma that you can't see the forest for the trees. You constantly paste haughty, pretentious "answers" that are riddled with errors and comical illogic.

Let's look at another gem of silliness and error in Gagne's pseudo-academic answer:

What?! For your and Gagne's information, until Larry Sturdivan came out with his 2005 book, not a single lone-gunman theorist claimed that the 6.5 mm object was an artifact but adamantly declared that it was a bullet fragment. I recall many debates with WC apologists in online forums, before Sturdivan's book was published, where lone-gunman theorists insisted over and over again that "of course" the object was a bullet fragment because, gee, all the experts on the Clark Panel, on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel, and on the HSCA's medical panel said it was.

But after Sturdivan, to his great credit, explained why it was a physical impossibility for the 6.5 mm object to be a bullet fragment (using the same argument that skeptics had been making for years, by the way), WC apologists slowly began to adopt his position. WC critics have long argued that the object had to be an artifact, and now, because of Sturdivan, LNers agree. The only difference is that we say the artifact was added to the AP x-ray after the autopsy, whereas you say that somehow, some way, by a means you can't explain, the artifact was accidentally, and thus innocently, added to the AP x-ray.

No one is putting words in Custer's mouth. His own words clearly suggest that he was using "fragment" as a collective noun to refer to the cloud of tiny fragments near the right orbit and that he was associating Ebersole's artifact conclusion with that fragment cloud. Even David Von Pein, of all people, says, "I'm not 100% sure Jerrol Custer was referring to the now-famous 6.5 mm object." When one read Custer's words, one sees that it is entirely possible that Custer was not referring to the 6.5 mm object and that "artifact" referred to the area of the fragment cloud that Custer pointed out to Ebersole.

As I mentioned, this would explain why the autopsy doctors, incredibly, said nothing about the fragment cloud/high fragment trail in the autopsy report or in their WC testimony. It would also explain why Ebersole said nothing about the 6.5 mm object to the HSCA and why he refused to discuss it with Dr. Mantik.

And I repeat that in all the numerous times that Dr. Mantik spoke with Custer about the autopsy and the x-rays, Custer never once claimed that Ebersole identified a single circular/6.5 mm object as an artifact during the autopsy.

Here's another example of pitiful blindness and bias, this one from Steve Galbraith in his most recent reply:

OR, the man spoke such horrible Russian because he was not the real Lee Harvey Oswald! But, no, the same Oswald who was cool, calm, and collected when challenged by a gun-toting police officer less than 2 minutes after supposedly just having shot the president of the U.S.--according to you, this same Oswald was so "overly excited" while talking on the phone to get a visa that he temporarily lost his fluency in Russian and spoke in such bad Russian that he couldn't even pronounce his words correctly and "mangled" the grammar.

UH-HUH. Well, all the CIA had to do was produce the surveillance photo of the man who entered the Cuban Consulate. And the FBI agents who viewed the photos and heard the recording of the supposed Oswald said the man was not Oswald, as Hoover informed LBJ:

And you ignore what I said about Custer. He didn’t look at the X-ray (after all those years) and see the “6.5-millimeter object” and say: Hey, wait a minute, that wasn’t on the X-ray back on 11/22/63. So, it seems to me that it must have been on the X-ray during the autopsy. Just like Gagne showed us.

When one considers the above, it really doesn’t matter how much one believes Mantik’s work is accurate. It is just as unbelievable as the center of the universe being in the professor’s home town…