Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The JFK Skull X-rays: Evidence for Forgery David W. Mantik DALLAS, TEXAS November 21, 2009.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The JFK Skull X-rays: Evidence for Forgery David W. Mantik DALLAS, TEXAS November 21, 2009."— Presentation transcript:

1 The JFK Skull X-rays: Evidence for Forgery David W. Mantik DALLAS, TEXAS November 21, 2009

2 JFK Skull X-rays: Intrinsic Evidence of Forgery 1.White patch 2.6.5 mm object 3.T-shaped inscription

3 The X-Ray Tech “These are fake X-rays.” Jerrol Custer X-ray tech for JFK autopsy Vanity Fair, December 1994

4 6.5 mm mystery—not seen by anyone on 11-22-63 JFK AP X-ray 7x2 mm—removed by Humes Metallic debris Nose

5 JFK Right Lateral X-ray: the White Patch White Patch Petrous Bone

6 JFK Pre-mortem X-ray No visible White Patch. I also saw no such thing on patient X-rays or in 19 cases of gunshot wounds to the skull in X-rays collected by Douglas DeSalles, MD.

7 The Strange Inscription on JFK’s Left Lateral Skull X-ray: as Shown on a Patient T-shaped Inscription

8 The JFK X-rays are Double Exposures: Steps for Success 1. Enter the darkroom 2. Place original film over view box 3. Place virgin film on top of original—best to tape them together 4. Place cover over both on the view box 5. Expose—but don’t develop yet

9 In the Darkroom: Exposure #1 Light Box Cover Virgin Film Original X-ray Development at this stage would produce a normal copy.

10 The Second Exposure 1. Prepare mask for bullet fragment (e.g., hole in cardboard sheet) 2. Insert mask over precise spot on original—best to tape in place 3. Reposition cover 4. Expose again—through the mask 5. Develop film. If necessary, repeat above steps until results look authentic.

11 In the Darkroom: Exposure #2 Development after this second exposure will include the “bullet fragment.” This works for either single or double sided emulsions—i.e., no difference between today and 1963. Light Box Cover Virgin Film Original X-ray Mask (Bullet Hole)

12 Cahoon’s Textbook: 1961/1965

13 Cahoon’s Textbook British Journal of Radiology (1963) 36, 223 © 1963 British Institute of Radiology ReviewBritish Institute of Radiology M. Frank Formulating X-ray Techniques. By John B. Cahoon, 5th edn., pp. 375 and index, 69 illus., 1961 (London, Duke University Press, Cambridge University Press), 60s. This book first appeared on the American market in 1948 and consisted of 59 pages. There were no illustrations. The present edition, therefore, bears little resemblance to the original work which was little more than a useful guide to exposures. Note the year: 1963

14 Instructions for Duplicating X-rays 56 FORMULATING X-RAY TECHNIQUES unexposed film (i.e., unexposed to light) is pre-exposed for the time indicated in the following table and placed on top of the original. The cassette is closed and placed with the glass front toward the illuminator. The illuminator light is turned on for the length of time indicated. Processing is shorter than that necessary for routine radiography. The length of time for exposure to the overhead (pre-exposure) light and illuminator light depends upon the contrast in the original radiograph. Overhead lightIlluminator If contrast is: pre-exposure exposure High Contrast15 seconds 15 seconds Medium Contrast 30 seconds 30 seconds Low Contrast 45 seconds 45 seconds A simple rule to follow is to increase the light exposure if the copy is too dark and decrease the light exposure if the copy is too light. Films develop in one third the normal developing time. One minute at 68º should be the optimum developing time, if the normal developing time for routine radiography is three minutes; two minutes processing time if the normal developing time is five minutes at 68º. If the developer solution is above or below 68º, multiply by 2/5 what the time-temperature chart calls for. ExampIe: Temperature of developer is 64º. The time-temperature chart calls for 6 1/4 minutes.

15 John B. Cahoon, Jr. John B. Cahoon Jr., R.T., American Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT) president from 1950-51 John B. Cahoon Jr. was one of the most highly respected educators the profession ever produced. Cahoon was a perfectionist who pursued excellence in everything. He chose education as the mechanism through which he pursued perfection, and demanded excellence from his students and colleagues alike. Whether lecturing before a classroom full of students or an auditorium full of peers, Cahoon was effortlessly comfortable at the podium, displaying elements of the showman and the comedian. His sum of qualities led many to describe him as an icon for the profession. He is remembered today by --the Jerman-Cahoon Student Scholarship --the John B. Cahoon Memorial Lecture --his textbook was continued (by others) after his death in 1973

16 Side by Side: The Original and a Copy— from Cahoon’s Textbook (p. 56) Cahoon (p.55): “By variations of the copying time, one may even improve on the original.”

17 A Bird (Pteranodon) Brain Note: My forgeries were made on modern single-sided duplicating film. Contrary to the early 1960s, modern double-sided film can no longer be used for forgery. Although copies can be made, they are easily detectable by a greenish hue. Had these dyes existed in 1963, forgery would have failed.

18 A Malpractice Case? Note: Metal should appear white, so this scissors is made of air. In this case, instead of using a mask to allow more light through, I used a real scissors over the original X-ray to block light out. Also: Notice all the apparent metal debris that I added, to simulate bullet fragments.

19 X-ray of Harper Fragment Metallic Debris John Hunt found this X-ray at the Archives. No government investigation was aware of metal on this fragment—and that is a critical piece of information.

20 Overhead View of Human Skull Harper fragment—in the wrong location. It should be in the occiput. Metal debris— confirmed by X-ray Suture line, according to Lawrence Angel Frontal shot: at hairline, above lateral right orbit X HSCA entry (near cowlick) X HSCA: approx exit Labels for the HSCA are pink. My comments are in yellow. The Harper fragment is displaced to the right of Angel’s site.

21 6.5 mm (as seen on AP) Mantik’s Reconstruction of JFK Posterior Skull Harper fragment Metal debris McClelland’s Trap Door (Bone Flap) Bone Fragments: C & D

22 The Mystery Photo F8: Posterior Skull Line AB defines the midline of the skull—from front (A) to back (B) Pathologist’s entry site (at the EOP)—falls precisely where metal occurs on the Harper fragment, in my reconstruction *Nipple, chest wall, and fat (from Y-incision) are seen in the distance, as viewed in stereo at the Archives— Kirschner agrees. *If Kirschner and I are correct about the upper left images here, then F8 must be a posterior view. Humes’s identification for the ARRB also can only mean posterior. That was also how the “military review” originally described it. C & D are bone fragments External beveling—per the HSCA Tentative EOP entry site—selected by Humes for the ARRB

23 Autopsy Sheet: Bone Fragments C & D Again Notch—frontal bullet entry

24 Back to the JFK Skull X-rays: Intrinsic Evidence of Forgery 1.White patch 2.6.5 mm object 3.T-shaped inscription Let’s look at the data.

25 JFK Right Lateral X-ray Black lines indicate the angle at which the AP X-ray was taken. This can be verified unambiguously by multiple anatomic landmarks. 7x2 mm fragment, removed by Humes Dark Area = No Brain Petrous Bone White Patch This tiny fragment correlates with the 6.5 mm object on the AP—and was described in the FBI report. Black Line Sinuses

26 The White Patch: Evidence for its Absurdity Naked eye inspection: just look at the pre- and post-mortem films OD data from the White Patch –ODs are consistent with bone head –ODs are consistent with JFK petrous bone –ODs are unlike any cases in forensic files –ODs are unlike any patients (in my collection) –ODs are not explained by an overlapping bone flap (with apologies to Pat Speer)

27 Speer: Mistake #1 Speer Quote: “Ironically, Dr. David Mantik who was to conclude that the white area ‘was almost certainly added in the dark room. Its purpose was to emphasize the resulting dark area in front, which suggested that a bullet had exited from the front,’ was on the verge of figuring out this mystery before his suspicious nature got the best of him. In Assassination Science, he discussed the white area in less paranoid terms. He said: ‘On close inspection, this remarkable white area is distinctly wider on one lateral view than the other. This implies that it was located closer to the right side of the skull.’ He was so close and yet so far.” Mantik: Speer concludes that the White Patch was caused by an overlapping bone fragment.

28 JFK Autopsy Photo: Bone Flap above Ear Note: As I understand Speer, this overlapping bone caused the White Patch. If so, he’s wrong. Bone Flap

29 The White Patch: Impossible to Explain via Overlapping Bone See lateral skull X-ray: focus on dark anterior area. This dark image implies that brain is missing from both left and right. That’s because most of the OD is determined by brain tissue, not bone. It’s easy to show that a single layer of bone contributes only a modest amount to the OD—an amount far too small to explain the white patch.

30 JFK Lateral X-ray This tiny fragment correlates with the 6.5 mm object on the AP—and was described in the FBI report. 7x2 mm fragment, removed by Humes The White Patch extends too far posteriorly to be explained by Speer’s bone flap. Dark Area

31 The 6.5 mm Object: Evidence of Forgery No one saw it on Nov 22—even though the entire purpose of the X- rays was to identify precisely such objects. No one even mentioned it on Nov 22. It first appeared in the Clark Panel Report (1968). Larry Sturdivan, the HSCA ballistics expert, has stated categorically that it cannot be a piece of metal. No expert has seen a similar metal fragment at an entry site (for a jacketed bullet like the M-C). But it’s much worse: The nose and tail of this bullet (in the WC scenario) were found in the limo. Therefore this thing came from inside the bullet—like a piece of sausage sliced out of the middle. The pathologists told the ARRB they did not see anything that large. All three medical consultants for the ARRB were quite troubled by this thing—but had no explanation for it. The OD data—at least 8 lines of self-consistent evidence—strongly suggests forgery.

32 My Notes on the 6.5 mm Object: October 20, 1995 (with Gary Aguilar & Steve Tilley) My sketch of the 6.5 mm object

33 Magnified View of My Sketch This is an authentic metal fragment (cross-hatched)—described by the FBI. The 6.5 mm fake was merely superimposed over this. The (viewers’) left edges match perfectly. Notice all the metal debris (red arrows)—and even one inside the 6.5 mm fake! Perimeter of the 6.5 mm fake Perimeters of both the 6.5 mm fake and the FBI (real) fragment

34 AP X-ray of Empty Human Skull 6.5 mm M-C cross section (from a real bullet that I sawed off)

35 Lateral X-ray of Empty Human Skull 6.5 mm M-C cross section (from a real bullet that I sawed off)

36 JFK Lateral Skull X-ray Dark Area Tiny, but authentic metal fragment, described by the FBI In contrast to a real 6.5 mm bullet cross section, this tiny metal fragment is not an OD match for the obvious image on the AP view.

37 6.5 mm: Real vs. Fake Metal Real Fake These OD scans were taken at 0.1 mm intervals on JFK’s right lateral X- ray, from top to bottom.

38 ARRB’s Medical Consultants Douglas Ubelaker, Forensic Anthropologist: His very first comment was about the 6.5 mm object on the AP X-ray. He immediately noted that he could not find it on the lateral. Mantik: But he offers no explanation for it!

39 ARRB’s Medical Consultants Robert R. Kirschner, Forensic Pathologist: He speculated that the 6.5 mm object might be a bone plug that was forced forward into the skull by a bullet, but he deferred to the forensic radiologist. Mantik: Apparently no one asked if he had ever seen such a bone plug before. No comments were offered about ODs or spatial inconsistencies. At any rate, we know very well from the OD data that this cannot be a bone plug.

40 ARRB’s Medical Consultants: the Buck Stops with Fitzpatrick John J. Fitzpatrick, forensic radiologist (here is our long- awaited expert): On the lateral X-ray, no object matches the 6.5 mm object [that was seen on the AP]. However, a mere trace of metal [DM: the FBI fragment] might be spatially consistent [DM: it is], but it did not have the required OD [DM: definitely not!]. Finally, there is no object near the eye that is spatially consistent with the 6.5 mm object [DM: definitely not]. Mantik: He offers no explanation—i.e., no expert can explain this mystery!

41 Pat Speer “Rescues” the Experts Pat’s 6.5 mm candidate

42 Close-up: JFK Orbit Speer’s 6.5 mm fragment (“slice”)—but that dog won’t hunt (per the OD data) 7x2 mm—removed by Humes

43 Speer: Mistake #2 Speer proposes his 6.5 mm candidate.

44 The 6.5 mm Mystery: Proffered Explanations ARRB consultants: No explanation offered. HSCA experts: None offered; in fact Larry Sturdivan, their ballistics expert, claims it’s not relevant to the forensic case at all—it’s not even metal. Pat Speer: His candidate (on the lateral X-ray) has never even been recognized as metal by any prior viewer. It’s a non-starter. Mantik: How likely is it that an honest JFK X-ray would introduce a totally unique feature to the world of forensic radiology? That is, after all, what is left to us. If you don’t believe in forgery, that’s what you must believe.

45 Famous Names Asked to Submit Questions for This Talk John McAdams (and his website) Michael Baden Vince Bugliosi* John Fitzpatrick (ARRB consultant) Mark Flanagan “Andy” Purdy* Gerald Posner* Randy Robertson Despite several responses (*), no questions arrived.

46 A Desperate Explanation for the 6.5 mm Object Discussed by Larry Sturdivan: It’s real all right (on the AP X-ray), but it’s just a random piece of metal (i.e., forensically irrelevant), one that fell off before the lateral X-ray was taken. (L.S. does not adopt this view— however, he admits that this thing remains a mystery.) Mantik: 1. If it’s irrelevant, then the HSCA’s case disintegrates—after all, this thing was matched to the red spot on the photos and those two items constituted the HSCA case for a single shot to the head. 2. If it was seen on the AP (and not the lateral), that by itself should have caused a great deal of consternation and searching at the autopsy—but there is only silence. Common sense demands that no such thing was ever seen on the X-ray that night. After all, my 7 year old son spotted it immediately—and he never claimed to be a radiologist.

47 A Last-Gasp Explanation Goes Awry This speculation (that it was seen on the AP, but not on the lateral) leaves almost everything unexplained: 1. Why does its size (6.5 mm) match the M-C bullet? 2. Why does its location match the Red Spot? 3. Why did no one comment on seeing it on the AP film? 4. Why did no one see or hear this thing fall off before the lateral X-ray was taken? (After all, such an object was the Holy Grail that night.) 5. Why is the spatially matching object (reported by the FBI) at the back of the head invisible on the AP? (Actually it is visible, as I have already shown in my magnified sketch, but no one else has reported it. That apparent invisibility should bother the lone gunman crowd, but apparently it does not.)

48 A Last-Gasp Explanation Goes Awry: More Trouble Here 1. We can precisely correlate objects on the AP to objects on the lateral—because we know the exact angle of the AP X-ray beam. 2. Therefore: We know that the 6.5 mm object precisely overlies the small piece of metal at the back (cited in the FBI report). 3. If this 6.5 mm object is merely random, the probability that it would so precisely match the FBI object is infinitesimally low. 4. Furthermore, I already knew that the 6.5 mm object was a double exposure—after all, I could see the real (but small) metal fragment inside the 6.5 mm object— with their (right) lateral edges precisely aligned. This required conscious control (during the process of forgery). The OD data confirm this conclusion.

49 From JFK Myths by Larry Sturdivan Sturdivan essentially argues as follows: 1.It’s obvious that no metal-jacketed bullet would leave part of itself at the entry site. [Mantik: This statement by itself destroys the HSCA conclusion—but L.S. did not so inform the HSCA.] 2.Therefore, a pathologist who saw metal at the entry site (especially when seen on only one X-ray view) would promptly ignore it—as irrelevant to the case. 3.Any respectable forger would place evidence (of bullet fragments) consistently on both views. 4.Since this was not done, no respectable forger was involved—therefore this cannot be a forgery. (Nonetheless, he admits it is an unsolved mystery.)

50 What Did Larry Forget? Not all criminals are perfect. This forger was being controlled by powerful superiors—who were in a hurry. Our forger had never done this before—he was flying by the seat of his pants. (Recall Custer’s bizarre stories of Saturday AM.) Also recall the insane story of “Aunt Margaret’s skirts”—and the zany requests for measurements for a bust of JFK. But here is the most important fact he overlooked: No one has the courage to cry: “Forgery!”

51 The 6.5 mm Forgery: A Summary All of the evidence—eyewitness, visual inspection, OD data, correlation of AP & lateral X-rays—all of this is consistent with forgery. This fake object was merely added in the darkroom via a double exposure. Furthermore, we can surmise when this occurred, as well as who did it. No serious criticism of this conclusion has appeared since I first proposed it in AS (1998). Even Kodak’s chief medical physicist offered no objection. Indeed, the primary response of the lone gunman crowd has been simple: merely ignore it. No one has suggested any other reasonable explanation. On the contrary, all we hear is that this thing is inexplicable—a unique event, one that only pops up in the JFK assassination. It never occurred before or since.

52 Arthur Haus, Director of Medical Physics for Kodak Arthur G. Haus is a medical physicist who has published 20 book chapters, four books and more than 100 scientific articles. He is a consultant and former director of medical physics for Health Imaging, Eastman Kodak. He reviewed my manuscript (we also met personally).

53 The Strange Inscription on JFK’s Left Lateral Skull X-ray: as Shown on a Patient T-shaped Inscription

54 The T-shaped Inscription (T) T has no intrinsic significance—apparently someone just scraped off the emulsion here (for no obvious reason). But here is what is significant: No emulsion is actually missing—on either side of this double emulsion film! Therefore: This left lateral X-ray must be a copy. The original has vanished—contrary to what NARA tells us. This film has never been made available to the public— and there are no Kodak identifying numbers on it. Their absence made forgery that much easier. (The forger(s) did not need to worry about multiple generations of numbers showing up on the copy film—that would immediately have incriminated it as a copy.) If I had to choose a single piece of evidence in the entire JFK case that screamed, “Government Cover-Up,” this is it.

55 JFK Skull X-rays: Intrinsic Evidence of Forgery 1.White patch 2.6.5 mm object 3.T-shaped inscription My suggestion: Next time your friends claim that the X-rays are authentic, ask them to explain these three items.

56 The ARRB Medical Consultants The ARRB used three of these. See Douglas Horne’s new book (appendices) for summaries of their opinions. They often disagree with prior government experts—sometimes radically so. They agree surprisingly well with one another—and with my prior conclusions.

57 ARRB’s Medical Consultants--#1 Douglas Ubelaker, Forensic Anthropologist The Red Spot does not look like a wound—he was surprised that the HSCA chose this as an entry wound His first comment was about the 6.5 mm object. He saw no partner image on the lateral—and was further surprised that the HSCA described this as a bullet fragment at the back of the skull The damage to scalp & bone suggests a frontal bullet The “lay” of the scalp does not match in two photos No entry wound was seen on the lateral—or on the AP The Dark Area is very puzzling—very atypical He could not fit the 3 bone fragments into the skull

58 ARRB’s Medical Consultants—#2 Robert Kirschner, Forensic Pathologist No inconsistencies between photos and X-rays [DM: Did he compare the Dark Area and the brain?] The Red Spot is probably an entry wound He could not determine the direction of the bullet No entry wound was seen on the lateral or the AP X-ray Re. F8, the “yellow spot” near the skull: this is likely muscle and fat exposed during the Y-incision. [DM: He and I are the only ones to state this—it seems obvious during stereo viewing at the Archives.] The brain was fixed more than one week The 6.5 mm object might be bone [DM: No way.] He very much doubted the Single Bullet Theory

59 The Mystery Photo F8 Line AB defines the midline of the skull, from front to back Pathologist’s entry site (near the EOP)—falls precisely where metal occurs on the Harper fragment *Nipple, chest wall, and fat (from Y-incision) are seen in the distance—as viewed in stereo at NARA; Kirschner agrees *If Kirschner and I are correct about this, then this photo must display the occiput. That was, after all, how the pathologists originally described it. C & D are bone fragments Harper fragment, correctly placed in upper occiput

60 ARRB’s Medical Consultants—#3 John J. Fitzpatrick, Forensic Radiologist The left frontal brain is present [i.e., in the Dark Area] The Dark Area implies “some” absent brain No entry wound on lateral or AP X-ray The 6.5 mm object is metallic [in disagreement with Larry Sturdivan] The 6.5 mm object has no partner on the lateral; a small metal trace at the rear [i.e., the FBI fragment] does not have the correct OD The direction of the bullet cannot be determined The frontal bone is intact to the hairline [as I sketched years ago] Without the body, he cannot interpret the Red or White Spot He did not find the work of Mantik or Robertson to be persuasive— they are not forensic radiologists. [On 11-3-09, I sent a letter that listed 12 points of agreement and no certain disagreement, asking that he clarify his statement; no response to date.] DM: Brackets above are mine.

61 Homework For Curious Characters Google: 20 Conclusions after 9 Visits by David W. Mantik --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And many happy discoveries in your own research efforts!

62 An Interlude: Autopsy Photos Original photos: color (5x7) transparencies Original photos: taken in stereo pairs Each image should be identical—except for imperceptible difference in perspective Prints (color, b&w) derive from these Pairs of prints: also viewable in stereo

63 Large Format Stereo Viewer Hyper-View Large Format Stereo Print Viewer This Large Format Stereo Viewer was designed and manufactured in order to provide the highest quality stereo image currently available. It does this by eliminating lenses from the system and allowing the viewer to see a large unobstructed image (up to 11 inches wide, 22 inches for the pair). This is accomplished by using front surface mirrors.

64 Dark Spot Autopsy Photo of Back: the Strange Dark Spot Official Back Wound This dark spot likely has no intrinsic significance—but it has bizarre photographic features.

65 The Back Photo: The Dark Spot on Left T1 P1 T2 P2 Lineage #1 Lineage #2 T1 = Transparency #1T2 = Transparency #2 P1 = Color Print #1P2 = Color Print #2 The line through the arrow implies that P2 cannot derive from T2 The dark spot has become hypopigmented, with a horizontal line through it!

66 Are P1 and P2 Identical? That is: Do P1 & P2 both derive from the same transparency? Answer: NO! Together they yield a stereo image—so they are NOT identical. Therefore: P2 is an orphan—it has NO visible parent! But that also means it cannot be an original.

67 The Back Photo: P1 is not identical to P2 T1 P1 [Missing Original Transparency] --------------------- T2 P2 Lineage #1 Lineage #2 Conclusions: (1) T2 obviously cannot be an original—although NARA claims so, and (2) since P1 & P2 yield a stereo image, they must have different parents. Hence, both T2 and P2 are orphans—their parentage is unknown.

68 Summary of Back Photo P1 = P2. That’s OK. They comprise a pair. T1 = T2 That’s OK (aside from the spot). But: P2 is an orphan. That’s not OK—it means that the original (parent) transparency is missing! And: T2 is also an orphan—but it purports to be an original! Its parent is missing—and that’s not good (for NARA).

69 So What Happened? Lineage #2 Missing Transparency (Tx): TxTx P2 T2

70 But why was this done? I don’t know, but we can speculate. I wonder if an attempt was made to lower the back wound, perhaps even to switch left side for right side. The back wound in the photo does not match well to the other evidence, for example: the jacket, the shirt, face sheet, eyewitness reports. The main point though is this: The current autopsy photo collection is not what it pretends to be; where did those orphans come from? And that leaves wide open the possibility of photo alteration—of other, more critical, photos.

Download ppt "The JFK Skull X-rays: Evidence for Forgery David W. Mantik DALLAS, TEXAS November 21, 2009."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google