GARRY PUFFER SAID:
...experts have concluded the X-ray is a forgery...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Says the Almighty Garry Puffer as he totally ignores the 20 photo
"experts" who were specifically tasked with the chore of determining
whether or not the autopsy photos and X-rays were forgeries.
Garry completely flushes Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7 down the nearest toilet
without batting an eyelash.....
"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken
of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been
altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41
So what's the point of even HAVING "Photographic Panels" like the HSCA
panel at all, Garry? You think all of them blew it (or were flat-out
lying). ALL of them. Correct?
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
I'm talking about one specific X-ray, David. Don't change the subject.
What your "experts" called an "artifact" or a "water spot" was shown by
X-ray expert Dr. David Mantik to have been an object added to the skull
and not present the night of the autopsy. That makes it a forgery.
Dr. David Mantik was able to establish, through optical density
measurements, that the 6.5 mm object seen on President Kennedy's autopsy
x-rays is not metallic, that its image was superimposed over a smaller,
genuine fragment, and that the 6.5 mm object must have been added to the
x-ray after the autopsy.
But the almighty David Von Pein knows better than Dr. Mantik. He can say
that Dr. Mantik's opinion doesn't count or that Dr. Mantik is wrong, but
that's just lame. Other X-ray experts have found this X-ray to be quite
troubling. David does too, but it would be too painful for him to admit
it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
From the JFK Bible....
[Quote On:]
"How would this "fake 6.5 mm object," as [Dr. David] Mantik calls it,
implicate Oswald? .... What possible advantage would the conspirators have
gained by forging the object onto the X-ray film? The thought that they
would risk getting caught doing this to implicate Oswald in a case in
which he and his rifle were already overwhelmingly connected to the
assassination is irrational on its face.
One should add that if, indeed, Dr. Mantik's conspirators were willing to
do something so extremely risky and completely unnecessary to frame
Oswald, wouldn't they have found some way to bring it to the attention of
the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964?
Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the sinister
implications of the "cardboard artifact" for the first time 35 years later
when he published his findings in the book Assassination Science? Isn't
this silly, again, on its face?" -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 222 of Endnotes
in "Reclaiming History" (2007)
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID (QUOTING FROM A DISCUSSION THAT OCCURRED IN
2006):
BEN HOLMES SAID (ON APRIL 15, 2006):
No-one saw it [the "6.5mm. object" on the X-ray] on the night of the
autopsy, despite an almost frantic search for bullets or bullet fragments.
BUD SAID:
This is a lie, and Ben knows it, as I've pointed it out to him before. The
x-ray tech taking the x-rays said he pointed the object out to the chief
radiologist, who declared it an artifact. Presumably he would have told
the autopsists the same thing, who would then ignore the object
(especially if they looked in that area and saw no such fragment). When
asked about the object decades later, what reason would they have to
remember it if the chief radiologist told them it wasn't real the day of
the autopsy?
BUD ALSO SAID:
Here we see a kook trying to disregard the physical evidence on the
grounds of a legal technicality. If you are really trying to approach this
case to figure out what happened, you wouldn't be trying to throw out
evidence, or find reasons to disregard it. You'd approach each piece of
evidence on the grounds of what is likely and rational. This is what the
kooks can't do, they leap towards conspiracy every chance they can,
concocting far-fetched scenarios that they've convinced themselves are
"likely" and "rational". That's why it is useless to argue this case with
kooks, they have no ratonality to apply to the case, they can't see what
an unlikely proposition they are presenting.
More from that 2006 discussion HERE.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Very humorous.
The object is visible on an X-ray that was not seen at the autopsy.
Therefore someone forged it and entered it into the evidence.
The implications of a forged X-ray are pretty horrible for the LN claims.
David totally avoids dealing with what is right there in front of him, and
instead uses the (very lame) "why would anyone do this?" defense. This
allows him to completely avoid dealing with what is there by positing that
it cannot possibly be there because no one would be stupid enough to put
it there.
"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" - Groucho Marx
Is that about right, David? No one would forge an X-ray because they might
get caught?
Your best days are most assuredly behind you.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's never been proven WHAT the "6.5mm object" is, Garry. I have no idea
what it is. You have no idea what it is. And nobody else does either. So
why pretend you DO know when you know you don't know?
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
An X-ray not seen at the autopsy, shown to have been forged.
This means nothing to you? Raises no flags? It's a FORGED X-ray, David.
It's not about me and what I believe, it's a forged X-ray. Deal with that
issue, would you? Stop evading the main point here.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I don't think it's a forged X-ray. And neither did the House Select
Committee. (Remember 7 HSCA 41, Garry? Care to ignore those 20 photo
experts yet again?)
And you do not KNOW the AP X-ray [seen here at 7 HSCA 111] is a "forged
X-ray". You're guessing. And you are guessing wrong. And 7 HSCA 41 proves
you are guessing incorrectly.
Use your head and think about Bugliosi's point again, too. Somebody fakes
an X-ray and then never makes sure the "fragment" comes to anybody's
attention?? What was the purpose of the "forgery" then? Just for the kicks
of faking an X-ray?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
There you go again... desperately trying to use speculation to over-ride
the evidence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh brother, Ben! That's another classic Pot/Kettle moment from a
conspiracy theorist to be sure. CTers have a patent on allowing
"speculation to over-ride the evidence".
That's too funny, Ben.
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
The 6.5 mm. artifact PROVES NOTHING. Even if we make the unwarranted
assumption of the artifact being a "cardboard" forgery (per Dr.
Mantik)....ask yourself: What does this prove? Anything at all?
The idea some dolts wanted to phony up an X-ray by placing a hunk of
cardboard on it is pure idiocy. (As if the guns, bullets, shells, and
Oswald's killing of Tippit didn't seal the deal on his guilt already.)
Get real.
KEVIN T. DRAISS SAID:
I love watching DVP hand you guys your asses. Smells like napalm in the
morning. It smells like victory.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Yep, forged evidence has no meaning in a murder case. You bet.
Do your handlers know you write crap like this?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, my handlers are all drunk tonight (it's the July 4th holiday, you
know). So I'm all alone in the Langley basement. Just me and my life-sized
bust of J. Edgar to keep me company.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
From Dr. Mantik:
"To date, no one (unless forgery is invoked) has been able to explain this
bizarre 6.5 mm object on JFK's AP X-ray. Even the experts for the ARRB
(including the forensic radiologist, John J. Fitzpatrick, who was visibly
troubled by this strange feature) could not explain this fantastic object.
So we are left with this conclusion about this hardest of "hard" evidence:
an odd event occurred in JFK's X-rays that has never, before or since,
been seen in the history of radiology. Furthermore, even the best experts
in forensic radiology still cannot explain it."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You can't prove the X-ray is forged and you know it.
Furthermore, as I stated before, it's just plain dumb to want to forge an
X-ray in such a manner. (With cardboard? Please.)
But you like Mantik's "cardboard" crap better than you like ANY
anti-conspiracy explanation. So, you'll swallow Mantik -- hook, line, and
cardboard.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Forged X-rays in a murder case? No meaning?
I don't have to prove it's a forgery. Dr. Mantik has done that. Of course
you know better because of all those credentials you have.
You cannot dismiss it by saying it would have been dumb or unnecessary.
Those are the arguments of someone who has lost and refuses to admit it.
You're losing your grip.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Mantik has "proved" no such thing.
You've already lost your grip, Garry. You're merely latching on to
Mantik's incredibly silly "cardboard object" theory because it provides
you with a reason (albeit a really silly one) to believe the things you
want to believe about the shadowy "conspiracy" and "cover up" related to
President Kennedy's demise.
In other words, to hell with common sense. Let's just pretend it's
cardboard.
Lovely.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Tell that to Ebersole.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm going to repeat the following 2006 post that was written by Ben
Holmes' aaj/acj nemesis, Bud, wherein Bud says something to the effect
that Bethesda radiologist John H. Ebersole (at least I assume it's
Ebersole that Bud is talking about here) said that he saw the "artifact"
on the X-ray on the night of the autopsy and told somebody else about
seeing it.
Now, I'm not sure what source Bud was using when he made this comment in
2006, but I'll tell you one thing (and I'm not ashamed to admit this at
all), I'll take Bud's word for almost anything as it relates to the JFK
case rather than believe anything uttered by the pack of conspiracy-happy
hounds.
I'll also say that I have not confirmed this comment made by Bud nine
years ago, but I know a little about Mr. "Bud" at the aaj and acj forums,
and he is not likely to shoot off his mouth about something for which he
has no support whatsoever. And I doubt he did so in this instance when he
said this....
"The x-ray tech taking the x-rays said he pointed the object out to the
chief radiologist, who declared it an artifact. Presumably he would have
told the autopsists the same thing, who would then ignore the object
(especially if they looked in that area and saw no such fragment). When
asked about the object decades later, what reason would they have to
remember it if the chief radiologist told them it wasn't real the day of
the autopsy?" -- Bud; April 17, 2006
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
After digging into the Usenet forum archives some more, I found the source
that Bud was using in the 2006 post above. He was using the October 28,
1997, ARRB testimony of X-ray technician Jerrol Custer, which can be found
HERE.
Here is the relevant testimony....
QUESTION -- Earlier you pointed to what I'm going to call a half-circle
that appears to be the lightest part of the film [X-ray], and you referred
to that as a bullet fragment, is that right?
JERROL CUSTER -- Yes, sir.
QUESTION -- Do you know where that bullet fragment was located in the
body?
CUSTER -- Right orbital, superior.
QUESTION -- How do you know it was the right orbital ridge, rather than
the back of the skull?
CUSTER -- Because of the protruding eyeball.
QUESTION -- Did you see the fragment removed?
CUSTER -- No, I did not. Can I interject something here?
QUESTIONER -- Sure.
CUSTER -- This area, I pointed it out to Dr. Ebersole as a fragment. And
he called it an artifact.
-----------------------
[End ARRB Excerpts.]
-----------------------
Now, I'm not 100% sure Jerrol Custer was referring to the now-famous "6.5
mm. object" in the above testimony, but if he was referring to that
object, then it destroys Dr. David Mantik's theory about the "artifact"
being added to the X-ray at a later date.
Right after posting the above testimony of Custer, Bud said this....
"Ebersole's job was to interpret the x-rays. If Ebersole told the doctors
to ignore the object because it was an artifact, that could explain why it
doesn't appear in their accounts." -- Bud; March 26, 2010
-----------------------
FWIW, later that same day (3/26/10), John McAdams offered up this remark
in a direct reply to Bud's comments about Custer's ARRB testimony....
"That's excellent work on your part. I've tended to just blow this off,
since the autopsists weren't competent with *forensic* autopsies, and
there would have been no reason to mention the fragment anyway. But OK,
you have a comprehensible explanation." -- John McAdams; March 26, 2010
-----------------------
And just so the conspiracy theorists won't accuse me of leaving out
anything they might consider to be of importance, I'll also add this
additional piece of testimony from Jerrol Custer's ARRB session, which was
uttered by Custer immediately after he had said the words "and he called
it an artifact"....
CUSTER -- I said, "How about these fragments up here?" This is when he
told me to mind my own business.
So, based on that rather callous remark made by Dr. Ebersole, maybe some
industrious conspiracy buff can find a way to include Dr. John Ebersole
into some kind of JFK assassination cover-up.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Of course he [Mantik] has proved it, David. You quite obviously have read
nothing about what he did and how simple it is to replicate. You really
can't get much harder evidence than that. And you dismiss it because the
implications destroy everything you've been lying about for all these
years.
Pathetic.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well then, Garry, based on Mantik's "cardboard" discovery, he should be
able to get somebody in Congress (or somewhere) to re-open the JFK case
and start up a whole new investigation. Right?
After all, Mantik has "proved" forgery in the Kennedy assassination case,
correct?
We can call the new investigative body "The Cardboard Commission". (Has a
nice ring.)
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
How does one reply to such nonsense?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Garry,
Do you really believe Dr. Mantik's "cardboard artifact" tears down the
entire case that indicates Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the JFK and
Tippit murders?
Really and truly? You believe that?
How does one even begin to respond to such a nonsensical leap of faith?
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
The three autopsy pathologists did not see this object the night of the
autopsy. They did not ignore it because they were told it was an artifact,
good old Bud notwithstanding. They have said that they did not SEE it in
the X-rays that night.
Not there on 11/22. Is there later. Hmmm.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But, as I posted previously, Jerrol Custer's testimony indicates at least
the *possibility* that the "thing" WAS there on the X-ray on 11/22/63.
Which, if true, blows Mantik's cardboard theory sky high.
And, as I take another look at the alleged phony X-ray in question (at 7
HSCA 111), let's see what "object" on this X-ray best fits the description
we see in Jerrol Custer's 1997 ARRB testimony....
"A half-circle that appears to be the lightest part of the film [X-ray]."
...which appears on the X-ray (anatomically speaking) in the...
"Right orbital, superior."
Hmmm. I wonder what object in this X-ray sort of fits that description and
location?....
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sH6DYhBlm98/VZmWa-qxYuI/AAAAAAABGnM/3BuiBFpPyBo/s1600/Controversial-JFK-Xray-7HSCA111.jpg
David Von Pein
July 4-5, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html
-----------------------------------------------------