Presentation on theme: "The JFK Skull X-rays: Evidence for Forgery"— Presentation transcript:
1The JFK Skull X-rays: Evidence for Forgery David W. MantikDALLAS, TEXASNovember 21, 2009This lecture was given for JFK Lancer at the annual meeting—”November in Dallas, 2009.” The DVD is available for purchase at the Mary Farrell website. The meeting site was the Adolphus Hotel, where Adlai Stevenson ran into spitballs from protestors in My review of Inside the ARRB, by Douglas Horne, is a useful adjunct to the medical issues presented in this lecture. See
2JFK Skull X-rays: Intrinsic Evidence of Forgery White patch6.5 mm objectT-shaped inscriptionThis lecture will focus on three powerful clues to X-ray forgery. All of this evidence is on the X-ray films themselves. It does not depend critically on any extraneous evidence.
3The X-Ray Tech “These are fake X-rays.” Jerrol Custer X-ray tech for JFK autopsyVanity Fair, December 1994Jerol Custer was the X-ray tech at the autopsy.
4JFK AP X-ray Metallic debris 7x2 mm—removed by Humes 6.5 mm mystery—not seen by anyone onNote JFK’s nose in the center and the two orbits on either side of the nose. The metallic debris across the top likely derived from a bullet that entered at the hairline, just superior to the right orbit. Several witnesses recalled that wound. The metallic debris may represent mercury droplets rather than lead fragments. The 6.5 mm object was not seen by anyone at the autopsy and was not removed, despite the fact that it is now the most obvious feature of the anterior-posterior (AP) X-ray. Most likely, it was added in the darkroom soon after 11/22/63.Nose
5JFK Right Lateral X-ray: the White Patch The White Patch was likely added in the dark room, to both left and right lateral X-rays. Its purpose was to obscure the loss of tissue at the back of the skull and its effect (especially alongside the very dark area at the front) was to suggest a bullet entry from the rear that blew out tissue from the front. The White Patch has an optical density nearly the same as the densest bone in the body—the petrous bone, which surrounds the ear canal. In other words, the OD data suggest that JFK’s head, inside the White Patch, was nearly solid bone from left to right. That nonsensical conclusion alone indicts the White Patch as a fake. Furthermore, such a white patch was not seen on his pre-mortem X-ray.Petrous Bone
6JFK Pre-mortem X-rayThis X-ray of JFK, taken while he was alive, does not show a white patch.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.
7The Strange Inscription on JFK’s Left Lateral Skull X-ray: as Shown on a Patient T-shaped InscriptionSince JFK’s left lateral X-ray is not in the public record, I can only show a patient X-ray. The X-ray in the Archives has a similar T-shaped inscription on it, as if someone had deliberately scraped away the emulsion. No one knows why this was done, and it probably has no significance. But its properties are bizarre, as we will soon see.
8The JFK X-rays are Double Exposures: Steps for Success 1. Enter the darkroom2. Place original film over view box3. Place virgin film on top of original—best to tape them together4. Place cover over both on the view box5. Expose—but don’t develop yetThese are the steps for copying X-rays in the 1960s (on double emulsion film). Actually, I was able to do this myself even in the 1990s (on single emulsion film)—before emulsion-based films became obsolete and imaging went digital.
9In the Darkroom: Exposure #1 CoverVirgin FilmOriginal X-rayLight BoxThis is literally as easy as making a photocopy today, except that it’s all done in the dark.Development at this stage would produce a normal copy.
10The Second Exposure1. Prepare mask for bullet fragment (e.g., hole in cardboard sheet)2. Insert mask over precise spot on original—best to tape in place3. Reposition cover4. Expose again—through the mask5. Develop film. If necessary, repeat abovesteps until results look authentic.The key to forgery was making the second exposure. As long as the film is not developed, additional exposures can be made endlessly. You are limited only by your imagination. Only after the exposures are completed is the film developed. Then everything that was exposed shows up. Many of you will have had similar experiences with your old 35 mm cameras, when the film failed to advance and you got double exposures, sometimes rather artistic ones.
11In the Darkroom: Exposure #2 CoverMask (Bullet Hole)Virgin FilmOriginal X-rayLight BoxThe mask can be anything opaque with a hole in it. The hole will transmit light and therefore the image of the hole will show up in the final (originally virgin) film.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.
12Cahoon’s Textbook: 1961/1965In that era, the radiology techs could not yet buy commercial duplicating film (emulsion on only one side). Instead, they used standard double emulsion film that first was solarized. (All the JFK X-rays are double emulsion.) That meant that standard film was first exposed to light (any light would do), which converted the film to duplicating film. That sounds counterintuitive but it worked. Cahoon’s textbook has the recipes for exposure times for both solarization and for duplicating. Initially, I knew nothing about this. Only after I spoke to some of the older techs did I locate older textbooks like this one.
14Instructions for Duplicating X-rays 56 FORMULATING X-RAY TECHNIQUESunexposed film (i.e., unexposed to light) is pre-exposed for the timeindicated in the following table and placed on top of the original. Thecassette 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 andilluminator light depends upon the contrast in the original radiograph.Overhead light IlluminatorIf contrast is: pre-exposure exposureHigh Contrast 15 seconds 15 secondsMedium Contrast 30 seconds 30 secondsLow Contrast 45 seconds 45 secondsA simple rule to follow is to increase the light exposure if the copy is toodark and decrease the light exposure if the copy is too light.Films develop in one third the normal developing time. One minuteat 68º should be the optimum developing time, if the normal developingtime for routine radiography is three minutes; two minutes processingtime if the normal developing time is five minutes at 68º.If the developer solution is above or below 68º, multiply by 2/5 whatthe time-temperature chart calls for.ExampIe: Temperature of developer is 64º. The time-temperaturechart calls for 6 1/4 minutes.Here is the recipe. The left column is for solarization, which converts standard film into duplicating film. The right column is employed for the actual duplication.
15John B. Cahoon, Jr. He is remembered today by John B. Cahoon Jr., R.T.,American Society of RadiologicTechnologists (ASRT)president fromJohn B. Cahoon Jr. was one of the most highlyrespected educators the profession ever produced. Cahoon wasa perfectionist who pursued excellence in everything. He choseeducation as the mechanism through which he pursued perfection,and demanded excellence from his students and colleaguesalike. Whether lecturing before a classroom full of studentsor an auditorium full of peers, Cahoon was effortlesslycomfortable at the podium, displaying elements of the showmanand the comedian. His sum of qualities led many todescribe 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 1973The author of this textbook was famous in his day--and is still recalled today by the honors named after him.
16Side by Side: The Original and a Copy— from Cahoon’s Textbook (p. 56) The original and the copy cannot be distinguished from one another.Cahoon (p.55): “By variations of the copying time, one may even improve on the original.”
17A Bird (Pteranodon) Brain One morning I took my little daughter’s plastic template to work and made a double exposure—leading to a birdbrain.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.
18A Malpractice Case?This was fun. Instead of using a small hole in a mask, here I blocked the light out during a second exposure, by putting a real scissors (made of metal) where I would usually put the mask with the hole. The result is a scissors made of air (black).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.
19X-ray of Harper Fragment John Hunt found this X-ray of the Harper bone fragment at the Archives. It has metal at one edge—which is consistent with what the Dallas pathologists (not the Parkland MDs) saw on the actual bone. To the eye, the bone itself apparently had a lead smudge. This is powerful proof that the Harper fragment was struck by a bullet or bullet fragment. Of course, the X-ray film cannot tell us whether the metal was on the inside or outside, but the actual bone fragment had metal on the outside. Therefore, a metallic projectile entered at that site. That would be consistent with the pathologists’ EOP entry site, which I accept. Neither the Warren Commission or the HSCA was aware of this Harper fragment X-ray.Metallic DebrisJohn Hunt found this X-ray at the Archives. No government investigationwas aware of metal on this fragment—and that is a critical piece of information.
20Overhead View of Human Skull Suture line, according to Lawrence AngelFrontal shot: at hairline, above lateral right orbitXHSCA: approx exitHarper fragment—in the wrong location. It should be in the occiput.Metal debris—confirmed by X-rayNote the text in blue: Lawrence Angel placed the Harper fragment so that its suture line lay at midline of the skull (the sagittal suture). For better visibility here I have displaced the fragment to the right of Angel’s site. Actually, the Harper fragment belongs to the occiput, but Angel was not told about missing bone at that site so he did not consider that option. In addition, Angel did not know about metal at the edge of the Harper fragment; it would have been most interesting had he known that. The EOP entry site of the pathologists is too inferior to appear here.HSCA entry (near cowlick)XLabels for the HSCA are pink. My comments are in yellow. The Harper fragment is displaced to the right of Angel’s site.
21Mantik’s Reconstruction of JFK Posterior Skull Bone Fragments: C & D6.5 mm (as seen on AP)Harper fragmentMcClelland’s Trap Door (Bone Flap)Metal debrisThe Harper fragment is shown here in its proper location. I arrived at this conclusion only after detailed viewing and OD measurements of the JFK skull X-rays. By sheer serendipity (or so it seemed at the time), the metal debris ended up precisely where the pathologists identified the EOP entry—i.e., I did not use the metal debris in my reconstruction. The bone fragments C& D are pictured in the next slide on the autopsy photograph, but they can also be identified on the skull X-rays. This agreement between the photos and the X-rays is very powerful evidence of the self-consistency of the reconstruction shown here. Also notice the location of the 6.5 mm object, shown here in black.
22The Mystery Photo F8: Posterior Skull *Nipple, chest wall, and fat (from Y-incision) are seen in the distance, as viewed in stereo at the Archives—Kirschner agrees.C & D are bone fragmentsLine AB defines the midline of the skull—from front (A) to back (B)External beveling—per the HSCATentative EOP entry site—selected by Humes for the ARRBThe bone fragments C & D correlate both with their images on the skull X-rays and also with Bowell’s sketch at the autopsy. Before the ARRB, Humes (tentatively) identified the EOP entry site. Although this is wrong, it clearly demonstrates that Humes recalls this photo as a view of the posterior skull, which is in radical disagreement with Michael Baden of the HSCA. I was, of course, greatly pleased that Kirschner (the forensic pathologist for the ARRB) agreed with my interpretation of the images on the upper left portion of this photo. This is yet one more corroboration for calling this a posterior skull view. That is, of course, precisely how the the autopsy personnel (at the “military review”) also labeled it.Pathologist’s entry site (at the EOP)—falls precisely where metal occurs on the Harper fragment, in my reconstruction*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.
23Autopsy Sheet: Bone Fragments C & D Again Notch—frontal bullet entryBoswell’s sketch here suggests where the right frontal (forehead) bullet entered. Astonishingly, he seemed to recall this site again when he drew a sketch for the ARRB on a 3D skull model. Also note bone fragments C & D here, as just discussed. They match the images on both the autopsy photographs and the autopsy X-rays.
24Back to the JFK Skull X-rays: Intrinsic Evidence of Forgery White patch6.5 mm objectT-shaped inscriptionI would emphasize again that the data to be presented here lie solely on the skull X-rays themselves. No extraneous information is essential to this discussion.Let’s look at the data.
25JFK Right Lateral X-ray This tiny fragment correlates with the 6.5 mmobject on the AP—and was described in the FBI report.White Patch7x2 mm fragment, removed by HumesDark Area = No BrainBlack LineODs were taken inside the Dark Area and compared to the sinuses. Numerically, there was very little difference, which clearly implies that very little, if any, brain tissue remained inside the Dark Area.Petrous BoneSinusesBlack lines indicate the angle at which the AP X-ray was taken. This can be verified unambiguously by multiple anatomic landmarks.
26The White Patch: Evidence for its Absurdity Naked eye inspection: just look at the pre- and post-mortem filmsOD data from the White PatchODs are consistent with bone headODs are consistent with JFK petrous boneODs are unlike any cases in forensic filesODs are unlike any patients (in my collection)ODs are not explained by an overlapping bone flap (with apologies to Pat Speer)On every possible measure, the White Patch is simply absurd. The OD data imply that JFK’s skull was almost solid bone, from left to right, inside the White Patch. No such white patch was seen in 19 cases of death due to gunshot wounds to the head, in X-rays collected by Douglas DeSalles, MD, from forensic files.
27Speer: Mistake #1Speer 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.The different sizes of the White Patch on the two views (left and right lateral) are consistent with manual insertion of a fake patch slightly differently on the two X-rays. Furthermore, there is no evidence of such a white patch on the AP view, a feature that Speer also overlooks.
28JFK Autopsy Photo: Bone Flap above Ear Notice that the flap extends only modestly posterior to the ear.Note: As I understand Speer, this overlapping bone caused the White Patch. If so, he’s wrong.
29The 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.The White Patch simply cannot be due to an overlapping bone flap—a single layer of bone contributes only very little to the total OD. Interested viewers should review the X-ray absorption coefficients of bone vs. brain tissue (see standard textbooks on the physics of radiation therapy). Also note that the Dark Area contains two layers of skull bone, one from each side, yet this area is astonishingly dark. One more layer of bone will not turn the Dark Area into a white patch.
30JFK Lateral X-ray This tiny fragment correlates with the 6.5 mm object on the AP—and was described in the FBI report.Dark AreaThe White Patch extends too far posteriorly to be explained by Speer’s bone flap.7x2 mm fragment, removed by HumesThe White Patch extends far into the occiput, well posterior to the bone flap that Speer identifies as its cause. Also note that these two metal fragments are not identical, despite efforts of some to conflate them into just a single fragment.
31The 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.Warren Commission loyalists have much to explain. I have never seen a complete explanation (from them) for all of these problems in a single discussion. In fact, they rarely try to explain even one of these items.
32My Notes on the 6.5 mm Object: October 20, 1995 (with Gary Aguilar & Steve Tilley) This is a photocopy from my spiral bound notebook: day #8 at the Archives.My sketch of the 6.5 mm object
33Magnified View of My Sketch Perimeters of both the 6.5 mm fake and the FBI (real) fragmentPerimeter of the 6.5 mm fakeNotice all the metal debris (red arrows)—and even one inside the 6.5 mm fake!We are looking here at the 6.5 mm object as it appears on the AP skull X-ray to someone with remarkably high resolution, close-up vision. Actually, this is close to what I saw with my very myopic eyes before I had Lasik surgery to correct my vision. I could actually see the real metal fragment (cross-hatched here) through the faked-on, larger object. This is a well-known phenomenon for a double exposure—see Fielding’s textbook on special effects in cinema.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.
34AP X-ray of Empty Human Skull 6.5 mm M-Ccross section(from a real bullet that I sawed off)I sawed off a piece of a genuine 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullet and filed a groove to match the object on the JFK skull X-ray. I then used fluoroscopy to match the angle that JFK’s skull X-ray was taken. This skull once belonged to a living human being.
35Lateral X-ray of Empty Human Skull 6.5 mm M-Ccross section(from a real bullet that I sawed off)This is how an authentic bullet cross section looked on the lateral. Notice how very obvious this metal is vs. the almost invisible fragment on the JFK lateral X-ray. The incongruous OD mismatch (on JFK’s X-rays—i.e., lateral vs. AP) was a point made repeatedly by the ARRB medical experts.
36JFK Lateral Skull X-ray Tiny, but authentic metal fragment, described by the FBIDark AreaThis tiny, but authentic, metal fragment is no match for the obvious 6.5 mm object seen on the AP X-ray.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.
376.5 mm: Real vs. Fake Metal Real Fake The OD data, taken at intervals of only 0.1 mm, show how dramatically different an authentic bullet cross section looks compared to the tiny fragment at the back of JFK’s skull. Of course, we already knew that, just from its visual appearance, as seen in the last several slides.These OD scans were taken at 0.1 mm intervals on JFK’s right lateral X-ray, from top to bottom.
38ARRB’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!He was one of three medical experts for the ARRB.
39ARRB’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.A second ARRB expert.
40ARRB’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!It was gratifying that Fitzpatrick agreed with me that (1) the tiny FBI fragment is where one should look for the 6.5 mm object on the lateral, and (2) that the ODs did not match at all (on the lateral vs. the AP). The buck stops with Fitzpatrick—because the other two experts deferred to him.
41Pat Speer “Rescues” the Experts Pat’s 6.5 mm candidatePat Speer attempts what no expert was courageous enough to try: an explanation for the 6.5 mm object!
42Close-up: JFK Orbit 7x2 mm—removed by Humes Speer here chooses a piece of bone that no expert ever identified as metal. Anyone who has seen the extant JFK X-rays would immediately recognize this as an error.Speer’s 6.5 mm fragment (“slice”)—but that dog won’t hunt (per the OD data)
43Speer: Mistake #2 Speer proposes his 6.5 mm candidate. This is Speer’s own correlation of the AP and lateral X-rays. I have not made this up.
44The 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 byany 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.The reason that no HSCA or ARRB expert offered an explanation is that forged bullet fragments are not part of the education of an orthodox expert—nor do such fakes exist anywhere in their worldview.
45Famous Names Asked to Submit Questions for This Talk John McAdams(and his website)Michael BadenVince Bugliosi*John Fitzpatrick(ARRB consultant)Mark Flanagan“Andy” Purdy*Gerald Posner*Randy RobertsonI asked all of these individuals to submit questions for my talk. Only Bugliosi, Purdy, and Posner responded, but no one offered any questions.Despite several responses (*), no questions arrived.
46A 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.This explanation won’t fly at all. Consider this: the lateral X-ray still shows that small FBI fragment, precisely where we would expect to see a much larger piece of metal (to correlate with the 6.5 mm object on the AP). What are the odds that a large fragment fell off precisely where a smaller one persisted? Furthermore, Reed was quite clear: he took the lateral X-ray first (Sturdivan’s scenario is the opposite of this)!
47A 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.)Warren Commission loyalists rarely even attempt to address a single one of these questions.
48A 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.Deliberate forgery is always outside the worldview of orthodox experts.
49From JFK Myths by Larry Sturdivan Sturdivan essentially argues as follows: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.Any respectable forger would place evidence (of bullet fragments) consistently on both views.Since this was not done, no respectable forger was involved—therefore this cannot be a forgery. (Nonetheless, he admits it is an unsolved mystery.)This is Sturdivan’s portrait of the ideal forger.
50What 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!”Fortunately for us, most criminals are not perfect.
51The 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.AS here refers to Assassination Science (1998), edited by James Fetzer. My primary article on this 6.5 mm object appears in that anthology.
52Arthur 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).Here is the ultimate authority on the physics of X-ray film.
53The Strange Inscription on JFK’s Left Lateral Skull X-ray: as Shown on a Patient T-shaped InscriptionJFK’s left lateral X-ray is not in the public record, so I can only show a patient X-ray here. This T-shaped inscription is similar to JFK’s left lateral. Its appearance immediately suggests that someone has scraped emulsion off one surface of the (double-sided) X-ray film.
54The 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.Larry Sturdivan and Chad Zimmerman visited the Archives after I reported this information. Amazingly, they failed to comment on it. I still don’t know if they looked for this. This would also have been a perfect opportunity for Bugliosi to examine evidence first hand—something he almost never did for his massive tome. Unfortunately, he failed to seize this simple opportunity. (NARA refers to the National Archives.)
55JFK Skull X-rays: Intrinsic Evidence of Forgery White patch6.5 mm objectT-shaped inscriptionThese are the three items to remember.My suggestion:Next time your friends claim that the X-rays are authentic, ask them to explain these three items.
56The 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.It is truly enlightening to see how radically these ARRB opinions differed from those of the HSCA—where the conclusion seemed to be foreordained. These ARRB experts apparently were not told what their conclusions should be!
57ARRB’s Medical Consultants--#1 Douglas Ubelaker, Forensic AnthropologistThe Red Spot does not look like a wound—he was surprised that the HSCA chose this as an entry woundHis 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 skullThe damage to scalp & bone suggests a frontal bulletThe “lay” of the scalp does not match in two photosNo entry wound was seen on the lateral—or on the APThe Dark Area is very puzzling—very atypicalHe could not fit the 3 bone fragments into the skullDuring my stereo viewing of the posterior skull, I saw only odd 2D images precisely where the large skull defect was reported. It would have been interesting to ask Ubelaker exactly what he meant by the “lay” of the scalp not matching in two photos. The summary does not actually state that he did stereo viewing, so he probably did not. Douglas Horne admits that even he and Gunn did not do this.
58ARRB’s Medical Consultants—#2 Robert Kirschner, Forensic PathologistNo inconsistencies between photos and X-rays[DM: Did he compare the Dark Area and the brain?]The Red Spot is probably an entry woundHe could not determine the direction of the bulletNo entry wound was seen on the lateral or the AP X-rayRe. 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 weekThe 6.5 mm object might be bone [DM: No way.]He very much doubted the Single Bullet TheoryThe most obvious inconsistency is the missing brain in the dark area, as compared to the nearly intact brain in the photographs of the brain. He disagrees radically with the HSCA on several points, however: no visible entry site on either skull X-ray and no apparent directionality to the bullet. Also, unlike the entire HSCA Pathology Panel (except for Cyril Wecht) he doubts the Single Bullet Theory.
59The Mystery Photo F8 C & D are bone fragments *Nipple, chest wall, and fat (from Y-incision) are seen in the distance—as viewed in stereo at NARA; Kirschner agreesC & D are bone fragmentsLine AB defines the midline of the skull, from front to backHarper fragment, correctly placed in upper occiputWe have seen this before. I would emphasize again though that Kirschner and I agree on the images in the upper left portion—something no one else has ever noticed. These images (in the upper left) essentially identify this view as one of the posterior skull.Pathologist’s entry site (near the EOP)—falls precisely where metal occurs on the Harper fragment*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.
60ARRB’s Medical Consultants—#3 John J. Fitzpatrick, Forensic RadiologistThe left frontal brain is present [i.e., in the Dark Area]The Dark Area implies “some” absent brainNo entry wound on lateral or AP X-rayThe 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 ODThe direction of the bullet cannot be determinedThe frontal bone is intact to the hairline [as I sketched years ago]Without the body, he cannot interpret the Red or White SpotHe did not find the work of Mantik or Robertson to be persuasive—they are not forensic radiologists. [On , I sent a letter that listed 12 points of agreement and no certain disagreement, asking that he clarify his statement; no response to date.]The OD data make it impossible that any significant brain can remain in the Dark Area. As of February 21, 2010, Fitzpatrick still had not replied to my correspondence, in which I had requested that he be specific about his objections to my work. He never did that during his time with the ARRB, except to say that I was not a forensic radiologist. Most likely he merely objected to a radiation oncologist intruding into “his turf.”DM: Brackets above are mine.
61Homework For Curious Characters Google:20 Conclusions after 9 Visitsby David W. MantikAnd many happy discoveries inyour own research efforts!
62An Interlude: Autopsy Photos Original photos: color (5x7) transparenciesOriginal photos: taken in stereo pairsEach image should be identical—except for imperceptible difference in perspectivePrints (color, b&w) derive from thesePairs of prints: also viewable in stereoThis sequence of slides is an addendum about the autopsy photographs. The original photos were 5x7 transparencies. All other photographs must derive from these.
63Large Format Stereo Viewer I used a large format, stereo viewer at the Archives. Since each photograph has a partner, taken from a slightly different perspective, a stereo viewer yields a three dimensional image (for authentic pairs without any forgery).Hyper-View Large Format Stereo Print ViewerThis 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.
64Autopsy Photo of Back: the Strange Dark Spot Official Back WoundDark SpotBy pure good fortune, my focus on this dark spot yielded some strange observations.This dark spot likely has no intrinsic significance—but it has bizarre photographic features.
65The Back Photo: The Dark Spot on Left The dark spot has become hypopigmented, with a horizontal line through it!Lineage #2Lineage #1T1P1T2P2Here I compare two photos of a matched (stereo) pair of 5x7 transparencies (of JFK’s back). On the right side, the dark spot is absent in the matching transparency—somehow it has transformed into a much lighter spot, with a horizontal dark line through it! Furthermore, the two matched color prints (P1 and P2—presumably made from two slightly different transparencies) both show a normal dark spot. I know that the prints (P1 and P2) are a matched set because they yield a normal 3D image via the viewer. So the question is obvious: How did the dark spot reappear in the second print (P2), when its presumed parent (the transparency T2) did not show a dark spot? Furthermore, the next slide demonstrates that P1 cannot have been the origin of P2—or vice versa.T1 = Transparency #1 T2 = Transparency #2P1 = Color Print #1 P2 = Color Print #2The line through the arrow implies that P2 cannot derive from T2
66Are 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.Color prints (P1 and P2) yield a stereo image via the viewer, so they are a matched pair. But the dark spot is present on only one of them! Because they are a matched pair, it is not possible that P1 derived from P2, or vice versa. (If that were true, a stereo image would not result.)
67The Back Photo: P1 is not identical to P2 Lineage #2Lineage #1[Missing Original Transparency]T2P2T1P1One of the transparencies (probably the one on the right here) cannot be an original photo. Instead, it must derive from a missing parent, presumably the original 5x7 transparency. One of professionals in my Dallas audience suggested afterwards that the odd appearance of T2 was due to the manner in which light reflected from the Dark Spot. But there is a problem with that: it does not explain why the color print has restored the original Dark Spot. On the contrary, one would expect that the color print would accurately duplicate the image in T2 (and show the horizontal black line).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.
68Summary 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).P1 and P2 constitute a matched pair, i.e., they are not quite identical to one another. Likewise, T1 and T2 constitute a matched pair, except of course for the matter of the dark spot. But P2 (the second color print) might also be an orphan—it has no exact parent in the extant photo collection at the Archives (the dark spot is the problem). But T2 (transparency 2) is also an orphan—because it differs from T1 (it’s a matched pair with T1) but it has no obvious parent in the extant photo collection.
69So What Happened? Lineage #2 Missing Transparency (Tx): Tx Tx P2 T2 Most likely, the original 5x7 transparency (now missing, but called Tx here) was copied to produce P2. However, for reasons that we cannot now know, while T2 was being prepared (from Tx) it was simultaneously altered to produce the light spot and horizontal dark line. Leaving T2 in the extant collection was a blunder; that was not supposed to happen. Instead a faithful duplicate of Tx should have appeared there, showing the expected Dark Spot.
70But why was this done? The main point though is this: 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.Most likely this alteration was focused on the location of the back wound. That wound may have been photographically lowered. Diana Bowren (Parkland nurse) clearly disagreed with the location of the back wound in the extant photo—she recalled it as being much lower. Moreover, much of the other evidence does not match well either. In particular, I was stunned when a male model wore JFK’s jacket at the Archives for me—the location of the bullet hole in the jacket lay far below the wound site in the photo. If these conclusions are correct the consequences are stunning: if the extant collection has been altered, even in this small fashion, then the door is opened to a literal cover-up of the large occipital defect.