Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Dr. David Mantik

35 views
Skip to first unread message

stev...@my-deja.com

unread,
Dec 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/22/99
to
At another JFK bulletin board I have been hearing
a lot about Dr. David Mantik and his "findings"
concerning x-ray alteration and new revelations
concerning the single-bullet conclusion's
impossibility. Has anyone reviewed his work
in "Assassination Science." Or for that matter
who can give me any information
about "Assassination Science."

Thanks


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


John McAdams

unread,
Dec 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/22/99
to
stev...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> At another JFK bulletin board I have been hearing
> a lot about Dr. David Mantik and his "findings"
> concerning x-ray alteration and new revelations
> concerning the single-bullet conclusion's
> impossibility. Has anyone reviewed his work
> in "Assassination Science." Or for that matter
> who can give me any information
> about "Assassination Science."
>

Mantik is the fellow who found a "suspicious" white blob over the back
of Kennedy's skull in the lateral X-rays.

He sees this as evidence of conspiracy, but he's never dealt with the
fact that the HSCA published these x-rays in the 70s and there was no
such blob then. The x-rays showed the back of Kennedy's head intact.

Why would the Evil Minions tamper with evidence that SHOWED WHAT THEY
WANTED IT TO SHOW?

Mantik embraces the wacky notion of Zapruder film tampering. You might
look at critiques of this notion, and particularly of Mantik at:

http://www.pe.net/~atd/moot1.htm

This is a page on Clint Bradford's site.

And check Tony Marsh's site:

http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/Mantik1.htm

This is an essay about how Mantik twisted witness testimony to promote
the notion that the limo stopped in Dealey Plaza. Since the Z-film
doesn't show it ever stopping, this is supposed to prove tampering.

Let me give you one final example, from Cecil Jones (who left a message
a day or two ago). Mantil noted a white object, looking like perhaps a
piece of paper, in the infield of Dealey Plaza on the Z-film.

It moves across the frame smoothly, which would seem to indicate no
frames missing.

But Mantik examined other photos of Dealey Plaza, found the white object
on none of them, and then concluded that the white object was painted on
the "tampered" film to give the *appearance* of smooth movement.

But Cecil Jones open up PICTUES OF THE PAIN, found an uncropped version
of Bothun 4, and there was the white object -- just where the Z-film
shows it.

Why didn't Mantik look at Bothun 4?

Mantik seems to me to be a nice enough fellow, but many of the things he
believes are just wacky.

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm


Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Dec 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/25/99
to
In article <3861A3...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:

>Mantik is the fellow who found a "suspicious" white blob over the back
>of Kennedy's skull in the lateral X-rays.
>
>He sees this as evidence of conspiracy, but he's never dealt with the
>fact that the HSCA published these x-rays in the 70s and there was no
>such blob then. The x-rays showed the back of Kennedy's head intact.
>
>Why would the Evil Minions tamper with evidence that SHOWED WHAT THEY
>WANTED IT TO SHOW?

You've been corrected on this before. The large white patch is NOT over
the back of Kennedy's skull--it is right next to that area.

When are you going to explain the white patch, which is 1,000 times
brighter than any light patch on any normal x-rays?

Instead of dealing with this problem head-on, you misrepresent Mantik's
argument and ignore the central issue of the brightness of the patch
itself.

MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH
Visit my Real Issues Home Page
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/

"No other success can compensate for failure in the home."
-- David O. McKay


Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Dec 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/25/99
to
In article <83pp9t$rd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, stev...@my-deja.com writes:

> Has anyone reviewed his work
>in "Assassination Science." Or for that matter
>who can give me any information
>about "Assassination Science."

Dr. Mantik's work on the 6.5 mm object was proof-read by Dr. Arthur Haas,
the chief of medical physics at Kodak.

Dr. Mantik determined by optical density measurements and visual
observation that the 6.5 mm object is not a fragment but rather an image
consisting of an image ghosted over a smaller, genuine fragment. He was
even able to duplicate a process by which the 6.5 mm object could have
been placed onto the x-ray.

John McAdams

unread,
Dec 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/25/99
to
Michael T. Griffith wrote:
>
> In article <3861A3...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:
>
> >Mantik is the fellow who found a "suspicious" white blob over the back
> >of Kennedy's skull in the lateral X-rays.
> >
> >He sees this as evidence of conspiracy, but he's never dealt with the
> >fact that the HSCA published these x-rays in the 70s and there was no
> >such blob then. The x-rays showed the back of Kennedy's head intact.
> >
> >Why would the Evil Minions tamper with evidence that SHOWED WHAT THEY
> >WANTED IT TO SHOW?
>
> You've been corrected on this before. The large white patch is NOT over
> the back of Kennedy's skull--it is right next to that area.


Mike, I saw this at 1993 ASK, and it looked to be over "the back of
Kennedy's skull" to me.

But I thought the point was that the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy
wanted to obscure the back of Kennedy's skull being blown out?

If that *wasn't* the reason for this supposed "tampering," then what
was? Is Mantik claiming that the Evil Minions tampered with an x-ray
for NO REASON AT ALL?

>
> When are you going to explain the white patch, which is 1,000 times
> brighter than any light patch on any normal x-rays?
>

When are you going to explain why the Evil Minions would have tampered
with an x-ray that already SHOWED WHAT THEY WANTED IT TO SHOW -- the
back of Kennedy's head intact?


> Instead of dealing with this problem head-on, you misrepresent Mantik's
> argument and ignore the central issue of the brightness of the patch
> itself.
>

How is that an "issue?" If Mantik is claiming tampering to cover up
"conspiracy evidence," then he needs to explain what the point was. Why
tamper with x-rays that show the back of Kennedy's head intact?

My guess is that what Mantik found is a artifact resulting from the
x-rays either being improperly fixed, or poorly washed after being
fixed. That could explain why the blob has appeared *since* the HSCA
looked at the x-rays.

John McAdams

unread,
Dec 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/25/99
to
Michael T. Griffith wrote:
>
> In article <83pp9t$rd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, stev...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> > Has anyone reviewed his work
> >in "Assassination Science." Or for that matter
> >who can give me any information
> >about "Assassination Science."
>
> Dr. Mantik's work on the 6.5 mm object was proof-read by Dr. Arthur Haas,
> the chief of medical physics at Kodak.

Where can we read Haas' review of Mantik's work?

>
> Dr. Mantik determined by optical density measurements and visual
> observation that the 6.5 mm object is not a fragment but rather an image
> consisting of an image ghosted over a smaller, genuine fragment. He was
> even able to duplicate a process by which the 6.5 mm object could have
> been placed onto the x-ray.
>

Where can we read Haas' review of Mantik's work?

Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Dec 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/27/99
to
In article <386511...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:

>> >Mantik is the fellow who found a "suspicious" white blob over the back
>> >of Kennedy's skull in the lateral X-rays.
>> >
>> >He sees this as evidence of conspiracy, but he's never dealt with the
>> >fact that the HSCA published these x-rays in the 70s and there was no
>> >such blob then. The x-rays showed the back of Kennedy's head intact.

You're forgetting that Dr. Mantik observed and measured--yes,
measured--the unnatural white patch ON THE X-RAYS AT THE NATIONAL
ARCHIVES.

You're also forgetting that the condition of the posterior of the skull in
the AP x-ray was largely ignored by the HSCA's forensic pathology panel.

Furthermore, Dr. Mantik observes that the bone fragment in the vicinity of
the proposed higher rear head entry wound presents a problem. It's
otherwise intact, except for the alleged higher entry wound (actually,
it's just a small transverse wound that's clearly smaller than the 6.5 mm
object 1 cm below it). If this bone fragment lies on the anterior skull
surface, then the posterior skull surface is MISSING. But, if the
fragment lies on the posterior surface, THERE IS NO EVIDENT INGRESS. In
other words, what we have here is either missing bone from the right
occipital area or no visible entry site at the proposed higher location
(see ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, pp. 111-112).

>> >Why would the Evil Minions tamper with evidence that SHOWED WHAT THEY
>> >WANTED IT TO SHOW?

A high school debate teacher would flunk you for such logic. You assume a
priori that the original x-rays showed what the plotters wanted to show,
and then you proceed from there. SOMEONE created the image of the 6.5 mm
object. Again, Dr. Mantik was able to see with his own eyes that there is
a smaller metal fragment within the 6.5 mm image, and that the remainder
of the image was ghosted over that fragment. He then measured the image
for optical density, using an optical densitometer, and confirmed that
part of the image is NOT metallic, and that the smaller object in the
image is a genuine, smaller metal fragment.

This, of course, explains why Sibert and O'Neill were told at the autopsy
that the back-of-head bullet fragment was the SECOND LARGEST fragment on
the x-rays. The small metal fragment inside the 6.5 mm object IS the
second largest of the fragments on the x-rays! The 7 x 2 mm fragment in
the frontal region is the largest.



>> You've been corrected on this before. The large white patch is NOT over
>> the back of Kennedy's skull--it is right next to that area.
>
>Mike, I saw this at 1993 ASK, and it looked to be over "the back of
>Kennedy's skull" to me.

Instead of relying on your recollection from 1993, you might try turning
to page 123 in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and looking at a copy of the x-ray in
question. The unnatural white patch is visible thereon, and it's clearly
not covering the right part of the occiput. It appears to be just to the
rear of the area of the right ear.

>But I thought the point was that the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy
>wanted to obscure the back of Kennedy's skull being blown out?
>
>If that *wasn't* the reason for this supposed "tampering," then what
>was? Is Mantik claiming that the Evil Minions tampered with an x-ray
>for NO REASON AT ALL?

Already answered above.

>> When are you going to explain the white patch, which is 1,000 times
>> brighter than any light patch on any normal x-rays?
>>
>When are you going to explain why the Evil Minions would have tampered
>with an x-ray that already SHOWED WHAT THEY WANTED IT TO SHOW -- the
>back of Kennedy's head intact?

Here you go again trying to use theory to ignore or evade an inconvenient
fact. Again, who says the original x-ray showed what they plotters wanted?
You do. So you assume this position a priori and then proceed from there,
ignoring all evidence to the contrary. A high school debate team would
politely ask you to have a seat until you'd cracked the pages of Logic
101.

>> Instead of dealing with this problem head-on, you misrepresent Mantik's
>> argument and ignore the central issue of the brightness of the patch
>> itself.
>
>How is that an "issue?" If Mantik is claiming tampering to cover up
>"conspiracy evidence," then he needs to explain what the point was. Why
>tamper with x-rays that show the back of Kennedy's head intact?

You haven't even read Mantik's chapter on the medical evidence in
ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, have you?

And just look at your logic: Just because you don't think Mantik has
explained why anyone would have created the unnatural white patch, you
feel the whole thing's a non-issue! Of course! White patches that are
1,000 times brighter than other white areas on human skull x-rays pop up
all the time!

>My guess is that what Mantik found is a artifact resulting from the
>x-rays either being improperly fixed, or poorly washed after being
>fixed.

So improper fixing or poor washing produced a white patch that is 1,000
times brighter than white areas on normal human skull x-rays? Dr. Mantik,
who has seen a lot of skull x-rays in his day, has never seen a white
patch that even came close to being that bright. To date, no other
doctors involved with the case have reported seeing such an unnaturally
white patch on a human skull x-ray either.

>That could explain why the blob has appeared *since* the HSCA
>looked at the x-rays.

How many times are you going to use this argument? Again, Dr. Mantik
found and measured the unnatural white patch on the "original" x-rays at
the National Archives.

And just because the HSCA didn't note the white patch hardly proves it
wasn't there. The HSCA didn't note the 19-degree drop of Connally's right
shoulder at Z237-238 either. The HSCA didn't note the smaller genuine
fragment inside the 6.5 mm object either.

At some point you're going to have to deal with the fact that Dr. Mantik's
work goes beyond the HSCA's research, in large part because he was able to
study the x-rays with equipment that didn't exist during the HSCA
investigation.

Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Dec 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/27/99
to
In article <386511...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:

>>Dr. Mantik's work on the 6.5 mm object was proof-read by Dr. Arthur Haas,
>>the chief of medical physics at Kodak.
>
>Where can we read Haas' review of Mantik's work?

I didn't say Haas reviewed it; I said he proof-read it. For Haas's
specific comments, contact Dr. Mantik.

Is there some suggestion here that Dr. Mantik is lying about Dr. Haas's
proof-reading and endorsement of his section on the 6.5 mm object?

John McAdams

unread,
Dec 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/27/99
to
Michael T. Griffith wrote:
>
> In article <386511...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:
>
> >>Dr. Mantik's work on the 6.5 mm object was proof-read by Dr. Arthur Haas,
> >>the chief of medical physics at Kodak.
> >
> >Where can we read Haas' review of Mantik's work?
>
> I didn't say Haas reviewed it; I said he proof-read it. For Haas's
> specific comments, contact Dr. Mantik.
>
> Is there some suggestion here that Dr. Mantik is lying about Dr. Haas's
> proof-reading and endorsement of his section on the 6.5 mm object?
>

Translation: Mantik hasn't produced a review from Haas saying that Haas
agrees with Mantik about the fragment.

Why doesn't he do so?

While I doubt that Mantik is lying about this, he certainly might be
unintentionally misrepresenting Haas' views.

You might check out the following URL about how Mantik misrepresented
the testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses:

http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/Mantik1.htm

John McAdams

unread,
Dec 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/27/99
to
Michael T. Griffith wrote:
>
> In article <386511...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:
>
> >> >Mantik is the fellow who found a "suspicious" white blob over the back
> >> >of Kennedy's skull in the lateral X-rays.
> >> >
> >> >He sees this as evidence of conspiracy, but he's never dealt with the
> >> >fact that the HSCA published these x-rays in the 70s and there was no
> >> >such blob then. The x-rays showed the back of Kennedy's head intact.
>
> You're forgetting that Dr. Mantik observed and measured--yes,
> measured--the unnatural white patch ON THE X-RAYS AT THE NATIONAL
> ARCHIVES.
>
> You're also forgetting that the condition of the posterior of the skull in
> the AP x-ray was largely ignored by the HSCA's forensic pathology panel.
>

No, it was not.

They quite clearly stated that the entry defect was in the cowlick area,
and that this entry point was on the margin of the large wound.

You might look at that the x-ray experts of the HSCA said about this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/hsca/hsca.htm


> Furthermore, Dr. Mantik observes that the bone fragment in the vicinity of
> the proposed higher rear head entry wound presents a problem. It's
> otherwise intact, except for the alleged higher entry wound (actually,
> it's just a small transverse wound that's clearly smaller than the 6.5 mm
> object 1 cm below it). If this bone fragment lies on the anterior skull
> surface, then the posterior skull surface is MISSING. But, if the
> fragment lies on the posterior surface, THERE IS NO EVIDENT INGRESS. In
> other words, what we have here is either missing bone from the right
> occipital area or no visible entry site at the proposed higher location
> (see ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, pp. 111-112).
>
> >> >Why would the Evil Minions tamper with evidence that SHOWED WHAT THEY
> >> >WANTED IT TO SHOW?
>
> A high school debate teacher would flunk you for such logic. You assume a
> priori that the original x-rays showed what the plotters wanted to show,
> and then you proceed from there.


The Ramsey Clark Panel saw the x-rays. They found the back of the head
intact.

The HSCA FPP saw the x-rays, and they found the back of the head intact.

So in the late 60s and then in the late 70s the x-rays showed "what the
plotters wanted to show."

Why did they mess with them between the late 1970s and the time that
Mantik got ahold of them?


> SOMEONE created the image of the 6.5 mm
> object. Again, Dr. Mantik was able to see with his own eyes that there is
> a smaller metal fragment within the 6.5 mm image, and that the remainder
> of the image was ghosted over that fragment. He then measured the image
> for optical density, using an optical densitometer, and confirmed that
> part of the image is NOT metallic, and that the smaller object in the
> image is a genuine, smaller metal fragment.
>


Mantik has seen a lot of things that are wacky.

But you are engaged in a Sashay(tm)!

You want to talk about the fragment, but you *don't* want to talk about
Mantik's "white blob."


> This, of course, explains why Sibert and O'Neill were told at the autopsy
> that the back-of-head bullet fragment was the SECOND LARGEST fragment on
> the x-rays. The small metal fragment inside the 6.5 mm object IS the
> second largest of the fragments on the x-rays! The 7 x 2 mm fragment in
> the frontal region is the largest.
>

I'm trying to figure out what the point of this is supposed to be.

A *smaller* fragment at this point on the skull would indicate a bullet
entry. In fact, no fragment at all would be perfectly consistent with a
bullet entry, since this point can be shown to be an entry wound because
of the beveling seen on the enhanced x-rays, and seen in the uncropped
original of F-8.


> >> You've been corrected on this before. The large white patch is NOT over
> >> the back of Kennedy's skull--it is right next to that area.
> >
> >Mike, I saw this at 1993 ASK, and it looked to be over "the back of
> >Kennedy's skull" to me.
>
> Instead of relying on your recollection from 1993, you might try turning
> to page 123 in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and looking at a copy of the x-ray in
> question. The unnatural white patch is visible thereon, and it's clearly
> not covering the right part of the occiput. It appears to be just to the
> rear of the area of the right ear.
>

Then what was the purpose of the "white blob?" Why did the Evil Minions
of The Conspiracy do that?


> >But I thought the point was that the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy
> >wanted to obscure the back of Kennedy's skull being blown out?
> >
> >If that *wasn't* the reason for this supposed "tampering," then what
> >was? Is Mantik claiming that the Evil Minions tampered with an x-ray
> >for NO REASON AT ALL?
>
> Already answered above.
>

No, it's not answered above. It never *has* been answered.


> >> When are you going to explain the white patch, which is 1,000 times
> >> brighter than any light patch on any normal x-rays?
> >>
> >When are you going to explain why the Evil Minions would have tampered
> >with an x-ray that already SHOWED WHAT THEY WANTED IT TO SHOW -- the
> >back of Kennedy's head intact?
>
> Here you go again trying to use theory to ignore or evade an inconvenient
> fact.

Mike, just how is it "incenvenient?" Just how might it indicate a
conspiracy? Why would the Evil Minions put a blob in just that place?


> Again, who says the original x-ray showed what they plotters wanted?
> You do.

The Ramsey Clark Panel, and the HSCA FPP.


> So you assume this position a priori and then proceed from there,
> ignoring all evidence to the contrary. A high school debate team would
> politely ask you to have a seat until you'd cracked the pages of Logic
> 101.
>

Mike, please stop with this silly stuff.


> >> Instead of dealing with this problem head-on, you misrepresent Mantik's
> >> argument and ignore the central issue of the brightness of the patch
> >> itself.
> >
> >How is that an "issue?" If Mantik is claiming tampering to cover up
> >"conspiracy evidence," then he needs to explain what the point was. Why
> >tamper with x-rays that show the back of Kennedy's head intact?
>
> You haven't even read Mantik's chapter on the medical evidence in
> ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, have you?
>

No, does *it* contain an explanation?

And if so, why have you and Mantik and all of Mantik's defenders refused
to post it?

Where is it? Why won't you folks produce it?


> And just look at your logic: Just because you don't think Mantik has
> explained why anyone would have created the unnatural white patch, you
> feel the whole thing's a non-issue! Of course! White patches that are
> 1,000 times brighter than other white areas on human skull x-rays pop up
> all the time!
>

Mike, it's a basic principle of thinking about this case. If somebody
thinks something is "suspicious," one should then ask "what would this
'suspicious' thing indicate?"

A lot of supposed "conspiracy evidence" can be summarily dismissed this
way.

For example, Jack White, in his video FAKE, claims that the back half of
the scope on Oswald's rifle is missing in one of the backyard photos.
This is supposed to indicate forgery.

The problem is that it's impossible to explain why the Evil Minions
would *possibly* fake a picture with the back half of the scope
missing. I can just see an Evil Minion getting out a hacksaw and sawing
off the back part of the scope cackling "this will really mess with
their minds!"


> >My guess is that what Mantik found is a artifact resulting from the
> >x-rays either being improperly fixed, or poorly washed after being
> >fixed.
>
> So improper fixing or poor washing produced a white patch that is 1,000
> times brighter than white areas on normal human skull x-rays? Dr. Mantik,
> who has seen a lot of skull x-rays in his day, has never seen a white
> patch that even came close to being that bright. To date, no other
> doctors involved with the case have reported seeing such an unnaturally
> white patch on a human skull x-ray either.
>

Very few doctors look at 35 year-old x-rays.

> >That could explain why the blob has appeared *since* the HSCA
> >looked at the x-rays.
>
> How many times are you going to use this argument? Again, Dr. Mantik
> found and measured the unnatural white patch on the "original" x-rays at
> the National Archives.
>

Mike, you just keep rigidly repeating this, and failing to address the
question of why no such blob appeared on the x-rays at the time of the
HSCA.


> And just because the HSCA didn't note the white patch hardly proves it
> wasn't there.


They published the x-ray, both in unenhanced and enhanced versions, and
it wasn't there!

Why don't you simply read the HSCA volume on the medical evidence?


> The HSCA didn't note the 19-degree drop of Connally's right
> shoulder at Z237-238 either.

Huh?


> The HSCA didn't note the smaller genuine
> fragment inside the 6.5 mm object either.
>

Probably because the "smaller genuine fragment" is a figment of Mantik's
imagination.


> At some point you're going to have to deal with the fact that Dr. Mantik's
> work goes beyond the HSCA's research, in large part because he was able to
> study the x-rays with equipment that didn't exist during the HSCA
> investigation.
>

You don't need "equipment" to see the blob. You only need your eyes.
It's not there on the HSCA versions.

Joe Durnavich

unread,
Dec 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/27/99
to
Michael T. Griffith writes:

>And just look at your logic: Just because you don't think Mantik has
>explained why anyone would have created the unnatural white patch, you
>feel the whole thing's a non-issue! Of course! White patches that are
>1,000 times brighter than other white areas on human skull x-rays pop up
>all the time!

Mike, you are misrepresenting Mantik's data. The bright white area is
almost 1,000 times brighter than the darkest area in the temple
region. It is not almost 1,000 times brighter than other white areas
on human skull X-rays. Some of the extra darkness in the temple
region may be due to missing brain matter and/or air in the tissues.

I get the impression that Mantik is pulling everyone's leg, so to
speak, on this particular issue. The "unnatural white patch" is
a feature seen on most lateral skull films, even JFK's pre-mortem
film. Take a look at this group of X-rays. The upper left is the JFK
enhanced film. The upper right is the JFK pre-mortem film. The lower
two are an example of the same lateral film. I increased the contrast
of the lower right one to show the "blob" that stands out when the
X-ray has increased contrast and how this "blob" is a normal feature
of the skull. I marked the blob area with an arrow.

ftp://ftp.mcs.net/mcsnet.users/joejd/blob.jpg

What is unusual about the JFK autopsy X-ray is the high contrast.
But before charging forgery, we should exhaust the more likely
reasons first. X-ray film is a photographic medium and there
are plenty of reasons why the contrast could be higher than typical.
John mentioned darkening due to incomplete washing. I described
Reed's technique of sticking two films in the cassette and boosting
the kilovoltage to a radiologist and he suspected overexposure as
a possible cause of the high contrast. Ebersole blamed it on the
portable machine. Zavada consulted radiologists and he said they told
him "the portable equipment used and the exposure level chosen for
autopsy X-rays fulfill an objective to detect metal. This practice
generally results in overall poorer quality images for other
analysis." Custer thought it was due to the quality of the film back
then. X-ray film has improved quite a bit over the years.


>At some point you're going to have to deal with the fact that Dr. Mantik's
>work goes beyond the HSCA's research, in large part because he was able to
>study the x-rays with equipment that didn't exist during the HSCA
>investigation.

Well, densitometers have been around a long time. They certainly
existed back then.

One sign the X-rays were high-contrast in 1978 is the fact the HSCA
had to get them enhanced. If they were good quality films, the HSCA
wouldn't have bothered.

In normal photography, excessive contrast is a sign that one is
looking at a copy. But, ironically, Mantik seems to stress in
his article in Assassination Science that the recipe for making
a copy on dual-emulsion film creates a copy that is difficult to
distinguish from the original. If we are looking at a forgery,
and the forgers used the technique described by Mantik, then this
would mean that the original X-rays were high-contrast to begin with.


>Dr. Mantik determined by optical density measurements and visual
>observation that the 6.5 mm object is not a fragment but rather an image
>consisting of an image ghosted over a smaller, genuine fragment. He was
>even able to duplicate a process by which the 6.5 mm object could have
>been placed onto the x-ray.

If he was able to duplicate it, why didn't he publish the image
in his article?

--
Joe Durnavich


Clint Bradford

unread,
Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99
to
In article <3861A3...@mu.edu>,
John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> wrote:

> Mantik embraces the wacky notion of Zapruder film tampering. You
> might look at critiques of this notion, and particularly of Mantik at:
>
> http://www.pe.net/~atd/moot1.htm


Thanks, John...but I have recently moved my entire JFK site to:

http://www.jfk-info.com

I retained the same page names, though...so the complete URL to this
page is

http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

- Clint Bradford, ATTENTION to Details
http://www.clintbradford.com

Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99
to
Joe Durnavich writes:

>>> Mike, you are misrepresenting Mantik's data. The bright white area is
almost 1,000 times brighter than the darkest area in the temple region.
It is not almost 1,000 times brighter than other white areas on human
skull X-rays. <<<

That's what I meant to say. I appreciate the correction. Yes, the white
patch is 1,000 times brighter than the dark area in the temple region, and
such contrast between light and dark areas is not seen on other x-rays, at
least not on any of those that Dr. Mantik has examined. To date, no
doctor involved with the case has produced an x-ray with such a dramatic
contrast between light and dark areas.

>>> Some of the extra darkness in the temple region may be due to missing
brain matter and/or air in the tissues. <<<

Then such contrast should show up, at least occasionally, on other skull
x-rays.

>>> The "unnatural white patch" is a feature seen on most lateral skull
films, even JFK's pre-mortem film. <<<

I disagree. The difference between the white patch and the dark area is
much, much greater than on other x-rays, including the JFK pre-mortem
film.

>>> Take a look at this group of X-rays. The upper left is the JFK
enhanced film. The upper right is the JFK pre-mortem film. The lower two
are an example of the same lateral film. I increased the contrast of the
lower right one to show the "blob" that stands out when the X-ray has
increased contrast and how this "blob" is a normal feature of the skull.
I marked the blob area with an arrow. <<<

But the contrast difference is nowhere near being what it is on the right
lateral autopsy x-ray, as you go on to admit.

>>> What is unusual about the JFK autopsy X-ray is the high contrast. But
before charging forgery, we should exhaust the more likely reasons first.
X-ray film is a photographic medium and there are plenty of reasons why
the contrast could be higher than typical. John mentioned darkening due to
incomplete washing. I described Reed's technique of sticking two films in
the cassette and boosting the kilovoltage to a radiologist and he
suspected overexposure as a possible cause of the high contrast.
Ebersole blamed it on the portable machine. Zavada consulted radiologists
and he said they told him "the portable equipment used and the exposure
level chosen for autopsy X-rays fulfill an objective to detect metal.
This practice generally results in overall poorer quality images for other
analysis." Custer thought it was due to the quality of the film back
then. X-ray film has improved quite a bit over the years. <<<

Then it should be a simple matter of finding a few x-rays that show the
same enormous contrast between light and dark areas that's seen on the
right lateral autopsy x-ray, unless you're going to argue that the right
lateral x-ray is a unique specimen of alleged machine malfunction.

Joe Durnavich

unread,
Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99
to
Michael T. Griffith writes:

>Joe Durnavich writes:
>
>>>> Mike, you are misrepresenting Mantik's data. The bright white area is
>almost 1,000 times brighter than the darkest area in the temple region.
>It is not almost 1,000 times brighter than other white areas on human
>skull X-rays. <<<
>
>That's what I meant to say. I appreciate the correction. Yes, the white
>patch is 1,000 times brighter than the dark area in the temple region, and
>such contrast between light and dark areas is not seen on other x-rays, at
>least not on any of those that Dr. Mantik has examined. To date, no
>doctor involved with the case has produced an x-ray with such a dramatic
>contrast between light and dark areas.

Modern equipment has automatic exposure controls that helps keep the
image quality more consistent. Any radiologist should be able to
produce an X-ray that resembles the JFK lateral ones by altering
exposure and developing times.


>>>> Some of the extra darkness in the temple region may be due to missing
>brain matter and/or air in the tissues. <<<
>
>Then such contrast should show up, at least occasionally, on other skull
>x-rays.

Such images probably exist sitting in storage somewhere. I doubt the
techs are proud of these and make little effort to advertise their
existence. I just can't believe these were the first low quality
X-rays to be produced in the history of radiography.


>>>> The "unnatural white patch" is a feature seen on most lateral skull
>films, even JFK's pre-mortem film. <<<
>
>I disagree. The difference between the white patch and the dark area is
>much, much greater than on other x-rays, including the JFK pre-mortem
>film.

Yes, it is much brighter on the JFK X-ray, but my point is that the
general shape is the same. The "blob" is a feature we see on the JFK
pre-mortem X-ray, but at a lower density.


>>>> What is unusual about the JFK autopsy X-ray is the high contrast. But
>before charging forgery, we should exhaust the more likely reasons first.
>X-ray film is a photographic medium and there are plenty of reasons why
>the contrast could be higher than typical. John mentioned darkening due to
>incomplete washing. I described Reed's technique of sticking two films in
>the cassette and boosting the kilovoltage to a radiologist and he
>suspected overexposure as a possible cause of the high contrast.
>Ebersole blamed it on the portable machine. Zavada consulted radiologists
>and he said they told him "the portable equipment used and the exposure
>level chosen for autopsy X-rays fulfill an objective to detect metal.
>This practice generally results in overall poorer quality images for other
>analysis." Custer thought it was due to the quality of the film back
>then. X-ray film has improved quite a bit over the years. <<<
>
>Then it should be a simple matter of finding a few x-rays that show the
>same enormous contrast between light and dark areas that's seen on the
>right lateral autopsy x-ray, unless you're going to argue that the right
>lateral x-ray is a unique specimen of alleged machine malfunction.

It is not necessarily a machine malfunction, but probably the result
of a combination of the portable machine and of Custer and/or Reed's
technique. I'd like to know what effect Reed's inserting two sheets
of film in each cassette holder had.

The problem of contrast still remains even if you argue forgery. If
Mantik is right that copies on dual-emulsion film closely resemble the
originals, then how did the forgers exaggerate the contrast? Can one
make a copy to regular (non-duplicating) dual-emulsion film that
contains a 1000 to 1 contrast ratio? (A normal copy will reverse the
image, that is, if the original X-ray is a negative, then the copy
will be a positive. The copy has to be grossly overexposed so that
the final image is a negative like the original.)

--
Joe Durnavich


Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
In article <386798...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:

>> You're also forgetting that the condition of the posterior of the skull in
>> the AP x-ray was largely ignored by the HSCA's forensic pathology panel.
>>
>No, it was not.

Yes, it was.

>They quite clearly stated that the entry defect was in the cowlick area,
>and that this entry point was on the margin of the large wound.

Of course they said that, but that hardly constitutes an indepth analysis
of the back of the head on the AP x-ray.

And Dr. Mantik found that the supposed higher entry wound is only a small
transverse defect that isn't even as wide as the 6.5 mm object.

>You might look at that the x-ray experts of the HSCA said about this:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/hsca/hsca.htm

The panel said very little about the condition of the posterior of the
skull in the AP x-ray.

Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
I ask this because McAdams just admitted he has not read ASSASSINATION
SCIENCE, yet he has strongly attacked it and dismissed it. I trust all
those who were so "outraged" when I made some critical comments about WITH
MALICE based on others' comments on the book will now be equally outraged
that McAdams would so strongly reject and condemn a book he's never read,
even though it's been out for a long time now.

In article <386798...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:

>> MTG: You haven't even read Mantik's chapter on the medical evidence in
>> ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, have you?
>
> JM: No, does *it* contain an explanation?

Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
In article <386798...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:

>> MTG: A high school debate teacher would flunk you for such logic. You assume


>> a priori that the original x-rays showed what the plotters wanted to show,
>> and then you proceed from there.
>
>The Ramsey Clark Panel saw the x-rays. They found the back of the head
>intact. The HSCA FPP saw the x-rays, and they found the back of the head intact.
>So in the late 60s and then in the late 70s the x-rays showed "what the plotters
>wanted to show."

You're going from bad to worse. We're talking about alterations that
would have been done long before the Clark Panel saw the x-rays,
obviously.

What about Dr. Mantik's discoveries concerning the 6.5 mm object? It's
not a fragment. It's only partly metal. The rest is a ghosted image.
He could see this with his own eyes, and then confirmed it with optical
density measurements.

Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
In article <386798...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:

>> SOMEONE created the image of the 6.5 mm
>> object. Again, Dr. Mantik was able to see with his own eyes that there is
>> a smaller metal fragment within the 6.5 mm image, and that the remainder
>> of the image was ghosted over that fragment. He then measured the image
>> for optical density, using an optical densitometer, and confirmed that
>> part of the image is NOT metallic, and that the smaller object in the
>> image is a genuine, smaller metal fragment.
>
>Mantik has seen a lot of things that are wacky.

So that's your answer to Dr. Mantik's research and findings here? That
they're "wacky"? Dr. Haas didn't think Dr. Mantik's research and findings
on the 6.5 mm object were "wacky."

That you would resort to this sort of casual dismissal suggests you have
no answer for Dr. Mantik's findings.

>You want to talk about the fragment, but you *don't* want to talk about
>Mantik's "white blob."

I'll gladly talk about the white blob. For that matter, I've been talking
about the white patch!

>> This, of course, explains why Sibert and O'Neill were told at the autopsy
>> that the back-of-head bullet fragment was the SECOND LARGEST fragment on
>> the x-rays. The small metal fragment inside the 6.5 mm object IS the
>> second largest of the fragments on the x-rays! The 7 x 2 mm fragment in
>> the frontal region is the largest.
>>
>I'm trying to figure out what the point of this is supposed to be.

Surely you see the point here, don't you? Isn't it obvious? The point is
this: S&O said the back-of-head fragment was the second largest fragment,
but on the extant x-rays the 6.5 mm object is the largest "fragment."
Dr. Mantik's discovery that the 6.5 mm object isn't all metal and that
it's an image that's been ghosted over a smaller genuine fragment explains
why S&O said the back-of-head fragment was the second largest fragment.
On the night of the autopsy, the back-of-head fragment WAS the second
largest fragment, and the smaller genuine fragment inside the 6.5 mm
object IS the second largest fragment. To put it another way, the autopsy
doctors described to S&O the same small fragment that Mantik discovered
inside the 6.5 mm object.

>A *smaller* fragment at this point on the skull would indicate a bullet
>entry.

The fragment is a good 1 cm BELOW the proposed higher entry wound. That
fragment is most likely a ricochet fragment from the bullet that witnesses
reported struck the road behind the limo early in the shooting.

> In fact, no fragment at all would be perfectly consistent with a
>bullet entry, since this point can be shown to be an entry wound because
>of the beveling seen on the enhanced x-rays, and seen in the uncropped
>original of F-8.

There is no entry wound at that spot--only a small transverse wound that
is narrower than the 6.5 mm object. Dr. Sturdivan has noted that the 6.5
mm object could not possibly have come from the cross section of an FMJ
bullet as required by your theory of the wounding, and forensic science
knows of no case where an FMJ bullet behaved in the manner required by
your wound scenario. The autopsy doctors saw no beveling on the surface
of the wound on the night of the autopsy. Dr. Finck told the HSCA there
was no beveling on the outer aspect of the wound. The autopsy report
clearly indicates the beveling was visible only from the inner aspect of
the skull. Dr. Seaman saw no beveling at the proposed higher entry site
on the x-rays. The autopsy doctors said the wound was a whopping 4 inches
lower than the location of the proposed higher entry point.

John McAdams

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
Michael T. Griffith wrote:

>
> In article <386798...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:
>
> >> You're also forgetting that the condition of the posterior of the skull in
> >> the AP x-ray was largely ignored by the HSCA's forensic pathology panel.
> >>
> >No, it was not.
>
> Yes, it was.

>
> >They quite clearly stated that the entry defect was in the cowlick area,
> >and that this entry point was on the margin of the large wound.
>
> Of course they said that, but that hardly constitutes an indepth analysis
> of the back of the head on the AP x-ray.
>
> And Dr. Mantik found that the supposed higher entry wound is only a small
> transverse defect that isn't even as wide as the 6.5 mm object.
>
> >You might look at that the x-ray experts of the HSCA said about this:
> >
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/hsca/hsca.htm
>
> The panel said very little about the condition of the posterior of the
> skull in the AP x-ray.

They said it was intact, but riven with fractures that radiated out from
the entrance wound in the cowlick area.

Mike, the x-rays show the back of the head intact.

John McAdams

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
Michael T. Griffith wrote:
>
> In article <386798...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:
>
> >> MTG: A high school debate teacher would flunk you for such logic. You assume

> >> a priori that the original x-rays showed what the plotters wanted to show,
> >> and then you proceed from there.
> >
> >The Ramsey Clark Panel saw the x-rays. They found the back of the head
> >intact. The HSCA FPP saw the x-rays, and they found the back of the head intact.
> >So in the late 60s and then in the late 70s the x-rays showed "what the plotters
> >wanted to show."
>
> You're going from bad to worse. We're talking about alterations that
> would have been done long before the Clark Panel saw the x-rays,
> obviously.


Why? Both the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP noted that the back of the
head was intact. The HSCA published copies of the X-rays.

What was the *point* of the alteration?

If you can't suggest why the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy would tamper
with the x-ray in that way, nobody sensible is going to believe it
happened.


>
> What about Dr. Mantik's discoveries concerning the 6.5 mm object? It's
> not a fragment. It's only partly metal. The rest is a ghosted image.
> He could see this with his own eyes, and then confirmed it with optical
> density measurements.
>

This is from the fellow who is "discovering" all kinds of "evidence"
that the Z film if faked. I simply see no reason to take his
"discovery" seriously.

John McAdams

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
Michael T. Griffith wrote:

>
> In article <386798...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:
>
> >> SOMEONE created the image of the 6.5 mm
> >> object. Again, Dr. Mantik was able to see with his own eyes that there is
> >> a smaller metal fragment within the 6.5 mm image, and that the remainder
> >> of the image was ghosted over that fragment. He then measured the image
> >> for optical density, using an optical densitometer, and confirmed that
> >> part of the image is NOT metallic, and that the smaller object in the
> >> image is a genuine, smaller metal fragment.
> >
> >Mantik has seen a lot of things that are wacky.
>
> So that's your answer to Dr. Mantik's research and findings here? That
> they're "wacky"? Dr. Haas didn't think Dr. Mantik's research and findings
> on the 6.5 mm object were "wacky."


And where can we read Dr. Haas review of Mantik's work?


>
> That you would resort to this sort of casual dismissal suggests you have
> no answer for Dr. Mantik's findings.
>

He's the fellow who keeps finding "evidence" of Z-film fakery. Why
should I take his "findings" seriously?

Mike, he's a buff "researcher."


> >You want to talk about the fragment, but you *don't* want to talk about
> >Mantik's "white blob."
>

> I'll gladly talk about the white blob. For that matter, I've been talking
> about the white patch!
>


Then explain why the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy put it there.


> >> This, of course, explains why Sibert and O'Neill were told at the autopsy
> >> that the back-of-head bullet fragment was the SECOND LARGEST fragment on
> >> the x-rays. The small metal fragment inside the 6.5 mm object IS the
> >> second largest of the fragments on the x-rays! The 7 x 2 mm fragment in
> >> the frontal region is the largest.
> >>
> >I'm trying to figure out what the point of this is supposed to be.
>

> Surely you see the point here, don't you? Isn't it obvious? The point is
> this: S&O said the back-of-head fragment was the second largest fragment,
> but on the extant x-rays the 6.5 mm object is the largest "fragment."
> Dr. Mantik's discovery that the 6.5 mm object isn't all metal and that
> it's an image that's been ghosted over a smaller genuine fragment explains
> why S&O said the back-of-head fragment was the second largest fragment.
> On the night of the autopsy, the back-of-head fragment WAS the second
> largest fragment, and the smaller genuine fragment inside the 6.5 mm
> object IS the second largest fragment. To put it another way, the autopsy
> doctors described to S&O the same small fragment that Mantik discovered
> inside the 6.5 mm object.
>

But what would the point be? Why would the Evil Minions of The
Conspiracy mind if the fragment in the other table of the skull was the
largest or the second largest? The "second largest" would be just dandy
from their standpoint.


> >A *smaller* fragment at this point on the skull would indicate a bullet
> >entry.
>

> The fragment is a good 1 cm BELOW the proposed higher entry wound. That
> fragment is most likely a ricochet fragment from the bullet that witnesses
> reported struck the road behind the limo early in the shooting.
>

Even if we assume this is true, you haven't explained by the Evil
Minions of The Conspiracy would want to tamper with this.

> > In fact, no fragment at all would be perfectly consistent with a
> >bullet entry, since this point can be shown to be an entry wound because
> >of the beveling seen on the enhanced x-rays, and seen in the uncropped
> >original of F-8.
>

> There is no entry wound at that spot--only a small transverse wound that
> is narrower than the 6.5 mm object.


Mike, you are not paying attention. You haven't read the HSCA on this,
have you?

There is beveling on the inner table of the skull visible on the
enhanced lateral x-rays. And photo F-8 shows the entry defect at the
rear of the skull, with the baveling on the inner table.

*Please* check out HSCA Volume 7.

> Dr. Sturdivan has noted that the 6.5
> mm object could not possibly have come from the cross section of an FMJ
> bullet as required by your theory of the wounding, and forensic science
> knows of no case where an FMJ bullet behaved in the manner required by
> your wound scenario. The autopsy doctors saw no beveling on the surface
> of the wound on the night of the autopsy. Dr. Finck told the HSCA there
> was no beveling on the outer aspect of the wound. The autopsy report
> clearly indicates the beveling was visible only from the inner aspect of
> the skull. Dr. Seaman saw no beveling at the proposed higher entry site
> on the x-rays.

He was looking at the *unehanced* x-rays.


> The autopsy doctors said the wound was a whopping 4 inches
> lower than the location of the proposed higher entry point.
>

And they also said that the entrance was on the margin of the great
defect.

So if they are right, there could not be a fragment embedded in the
outer table of the skull at the "higher" location, since that would have
been gone.

But above, you say there *was* a fragment at that location. Let me
repeat what you said:

> The fragment is a good 1 cm BELOW the proposed higher entry wound. That
> fragment is most likely a ricochet fragment from the bullet that witnesses
> reported struck the road behind the limo early in the shooting.
>

So why are you quoting the autopsy doctors with approval, and then
embracing a theory that is flatly *contradicted* by their testimony?

John McAdams

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
Michael T. Griffith wrote:
>
> I ask this because McAdams just admitted he has not read ASSASSINATION
> SCIENCE, yet he has strongly attacked it and dismissed it. I trust all
> those who were so "outraged" when I made some critical comments about WITH
> MALICE based on others' comments on the book will now be equally outraged
> that McAdams would so strongly reject and condemn a book he's never read,
> even though it's been out for a long time now.


My comments about Mantik were not based on ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, but on
seeing his presentations at ASK 1993, and COPA 1995.


>
> In article <386798...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:
>
> >> MTG: You haven't even read Mantik's chapter on the medical evidence in
> >> ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, have you?
> >
> > JM: No, does *it* contain an explanation?


>
> MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH
> Visit my Real Issues Home Page
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MGriffith_2/
>
> "No other success can compensate for failure in the home."
> -- David O. McKay

.John

Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
I forwarded Joe Durnavich's comments to Dr. Mantik, and he replied as
follows:

-----Quote On-----

Dear Michael:

This will obviously require a longer and more detailed response than I now
have time for, but there appears to be a surprising lack of understanding
of several fundamental issues in this entire line of questioning. The
visual appearance of the X-ray was only an initial CLUE. The meat of the
work is in the OD numbers, some of which I have published (but many of
which still remain unpublished)--both for many controls of real patients
and for the JFK X-rays.

The primary reason that the HSCA produced an enhanced image was so that
when printed on paper it would look as similar as possible to the actual
X-ray film--which it does. If one had the actual film to examine (as I
did) there would be no need at all for any enhancement.

There is no specific reason that I did not publish the image of a real 6.5
mm fragment superimposed on a real human skull X-ray (or lots of other
interesting and useful things for that matter). I still have that X-ray in
my files here at home--and I have shown it (and an image on a slide) at
several public conferences. Nothing is being hidden here--the questioner
seems to suggest that something being deliberately covered up because this
has not been published. If so, that is nonsense.

All this talk about technique is quite beside the point, too, because I am
comparing numbers and observations from two portions of the SAME film
(anterior and posterior skull) to similar portions of another film (or
films). Each PART of ONE of these films has been exposed and developed by
an identical technique--it is, after all, just a single film! The next
film may have had different technical parameters but the ENTIRE film
shares the SAME parameters. AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE?

Regarding other possible explanations for the differences between the
front and back of the skull X-ray, this issue has been discussed
exhaustively (perhaps exhaustingly) in a very long paper that I circulated
many years ago to a limited audience and which has not been published.
What I have concluded in my published work was only after thoroughly
reviewing as many alternate explanations as I could think of. Randy
Robertson, at one point, also contributed some objections, none of which
seemed to go anywhere. Though I thought it was a bit unnecessary I even
did some simple experiments to disprove some of his hypotheses.

By the way, your questioner should be reminded, in case he has forgotten,
that my Assassination Science paper was reviewed by the head of medical
physics for Kodak--who said he thoroughly enjoyed it and had no further
suggestions to make before publication. He also showed it to one of his
experienced techs--with the same result. The truth is out there--we just
have to be willing to face it. Sometimes that is the hardest part.

Time for bed here. Please follow-up as needed.

David Mantik

------Quote Off-----

Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
Dr. Mantik sent me a follow-up to his e-mail to me of last night:

-----Quote On-----

THE MORNING AFTER FOLLOW-UP THOUGHTS.

The key to this discussion is the characteristic curve, about which I have
written extensively. I have also communicated with Kodak who helped me to
identify the appropriate characteristic curve for the JFK autopsy X-rays.

In the long and rather technical paper that I circulated to a limited
audience this curve was included and was discussed at some length. I also
recall discussing the technical issues surrounding the images on the
duplicate X-rays at some length in follow-up papers that also were not
published but which are still in my files. Essentially all of the issues
that your discussant has presented can be addressed nicely by starting
with the characteristic curve--that is what his interviewees were implying
without their actually saying so. None of this is new--in fact, it seems
almost like ancient history to me at this point.

For anyone who really cares about the technical issues, I can provide some
references or even my own work. I did cite the creative work of Art Haus
of Kodak in my Assassination Science paper--interested parties can start
with that. I think this subject matter is conceptually accessible to an
intelligent layman, but may require some diligent laying of foundations.
Having a background in photography will certainly help. Best wishes. David
Mantik

Joe Durnavich

unread,
Dec 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/29/99
to
Michael T. Griffith writes:

>I forwarded some comments of Joe Durnavich's regarding Dr. Mantik's research
>and findings on the autopsy x-rays to Dr. Mantik himself. Dr. Mantik replied
>as shown below. Joe's comments were made in a response to a post of mine.
>I'll show Dr. Mantik's response, and then Joe's comments to which Dr. Mantik
>responded.


>
>-----Quote On-----
>
>Dear Michael:
>
>This will obviously require a longer and more detailed response than I now have
>time for, but there appears to be a surprising lack of understanding of several
>fundamental issues in this entire line of questioning. The visual appearance of
>the X-ray was only an initial CLUE. The meat of the work is in the OD numbers,
>some of which I have published (but many of which still remain
>unpublished)--both for many controls of real patients and for the JFK X-rays.
>
>The primary reason that the HSCA produced an enhanced image was so that when
>printed on paper it would look as similar as possible to the actual X-ray
>film--which it does.

This can't be completely true, that the printed image looks similar to
the actual X-ray. There is no way a typical reflective print can
display a 3+ density range. A purpose of the enhancement was to
reduce this wide tonal range into a much narrower range suitable for
print, but sacrificing much of the fine tonal gradation as a result.


>If one had the actual film to examine (as I did) there
>would be no need at all for any enhancement.

Remember that McDonnel asked for the enhancements and used them to
make his final report. He had access to the original films, but
obviously found certain features more prominent on the enhancements.


>There is no specific reason that I did not publish the image of a real 6.5 mm
>fragment superimposed on a real human skull X-ray (or lots of other interesting
>and useful things for that matter). I still have that X-ray in my files here at
>home--and I have shown it (and an image on a slide) at several public
>conferences. Nothing is being hidden here--the questioner seems to suggest that
>something being deliberately covered up because this has not been published. If
>so, that is nonsense.

I'm sure Dr. Mantik could get a 6.5 mm circle superimposed on a human
skull X-ray. Mike, you suggested that he was able to duplicate the
alleged forgery of the JFK film. I took this to mean that Mantik
radiographed a skull with a 2 to 3 mm wide lead fragment, superimposed
the rest of the 6.5 mm circular image, and got an OD graph that at
least roughly resembles the graph in his AS article. He should
be able to do this on non-duplicating film, that is, something with
the high gamma typical of X-ray films. And to be a stickler, it
should be on dual-emulsion film, but I understand this is no longer
possible with modern films because of the dyes.

Mantik's conclusion that the JFK films are anomalous is based on
solid data. He presents no such data to support his claim that
specific forgery techniques were used.


>All this talk about technique is quite beside the point, too, because I am
>comparing numbers and observations from two portions of the SAME film (anterior
>and posterior skull) to similar portions of another film (or films). Each PART
>of ONE of these films has been exposed and developed by an identical
>technique--it is, after all, just a single film! The next film may have had
>different technical parameters but the ENTIRE film shares the SAME parameters.
>AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE?

I'm not sure what is being addressed here. My point is that exposure
and development can alter the distribution of densities in the film.
For example, I can photograph a scene underexposed by 2 stops and
then let it sit in the developer a while longer and get a negative
with extra bright white areas, and extra dark black areas.

The shape of the bright white blob, as it has been referred to, is
also seen on the JFK pre-mortem X-ray. It is simply brighter (and
the temple area is darker) on the JFK autopsy X-ray. Rather than
some sort of masking, burning, or dodging done by forgers, I'm
suggesting a less sinister cause, perhaps improper exposure and/or
development.

The question is, do the skull films display non-anatomical features
(other than bullet fragments) or do they display anatomical features,
but at non-ideal locations of film's characteristic curve?


>Regarding other possible explanations for the differences between the front and
>back of the skull X-ray, this issue has been discussed exhaustively (perhaps
>exhaustingly) in a very long paper that I circulated many years ago to a
>limited audience and which has not been published. What I have concluded in my
>published work was only after thoroughly reviewing as many alternate
>explanations as I could think of. Randy Robertson, at one point, also
>contributed some objections, none of which seemed to go anywhere.

I'm curious to know what effect loading two sheets of dual-emulsion
film in the cassette has.

>Though I thought it was a bit unnecessary I even did some simple
>experiments to disprove some of his hypotheses.

I trust, then, that Dr. Mantik's forgery experiments hold up to
similar scrutiny, that one cannot detect them as forgeries?

--
Joe Durnavich

Joe Durnavich

unread,
Jan 3, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/3/00
to
Paul Seaton writes:

>Joe Durnavich wrote in message ...


>>
>>I'm not sure what is being addressed here. My point is that exposure
>>and development can alter the distribution of densities in the film.
>>For example, I can photograph a scene underexposed by 2 stops and
>>then let it sit in the developer a while longer and get a negative
>>with extra bright white areas, and extra dark black areas.
>

>But this method would not change the *relative* densities, Joe. As I
>understand it, one of Mantik's points is that the density through the
>'great white patch' is greater than that through the solid bone around the
>ear canal, which traverses the skull from left to right. Ergo....something
>is wrong which can't be down to sloppy xray or dark room technique. If you
>photograph your white cat and your grey cat in one picture, and your grey
>cat comes out *lighter* than your white cat, you can't blame it on
>overdevelopment. That would just make your white cat
>*superwhite*.....still the lighter of the two. (Stupid analogy but the
>best I can think of at the moment.)

Mantik says the white patch is "almost as lucent as the densest bone in
the body". The relative densities are still correct.


>Same applies to the 6.5mm frag on the AP. Mantik says it's *denser* than
>the accumulated densities of all JFK's dental fillings , seen 'end on'.
>That's denser than couple of inches or more of silver & mercury (I think I
>got the right elements) That's what I call dense. Once again the point is
>*comparative' & not a question of absolute values, density-wise. Over
>exposure/development of a 'sensible xray' would just crank up the 'row of
>fillings' value too, & you wouldn't get the crazy result.

I disagree with Mantik here. The AP is Modified Waters, so the dental
fillings don't "stack up" in the image. The teeth are in a "frown" shape
(see the non-enhanced AP).


>Mantik points out it's only in fact with *dual-emulsion* film that he
>could make a decent forgery. Until he discovered it was in use in 63, he
>couldn't see how any forgery could have been accomplished.

Copy film existed back then. X-rays were normally copied to
single-emulsion film. (One of the techs at his ARRB deposition checked
the film to make sure it wasn't single-emulsion which would mean it was a
copy.) Mantik means that copies on modern dual-emulsion film are not
possible. They are possible on 1963 era film, but he hasn't studied any
actual examples.

The problem with copying to dual-emulsion film is that you have to get the
light to pass through one layer onto the other and give an exposure that
is as good as the other side. This is why I wondered about the effect of
Reed's placing two sheets of film in each cassette.

--
Joe Durnavich


Paul Seaton

unread,
Jan 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/4/00
to

Joe Durnavich wrote in message ...
>
>I'm not sure what is being addressed here. My point is that exposure
>and development can alter the distribution of densities in the film.
>For example, I can photograph a scene underexposed by 2 stops and
>then let it sit in the developer a while longer and get a negative
>with extra bright white areas, and extra dark black areas.

But this method would not change the *relative* densities, Joe. As I


understand it, one of Mantik's points is that the density through the
'great white patch' is greater than that through the solid bone around the
ear canal, which traverses the skull from left to right. Ergo....something
is wrong which can't be down to sloppy xray or dark room technique. If you
photograph your white cat and your grey cat in one picture, and your grey
cat comes out *lighter* than your white cat, you can't blame it on
overdevelopment. That would just make your white cat
*superwhite*.....still the lighter of the two. (Stupid analogy but the
best I can think of at the moment.)

Same applies to the 6.5mm frag on the AP. Mantik says it's *denser* than


the accumulated densities of all JFK's dental fillings , seen 'end on'.
That's denser than couple of inches or more of silver & mercury (I think I
got the right elements) That's what I call dense. Once again the point is
*comparative' & not a question of absolute values, density-wise. Over
exposure/development of a 'sensible xray' would just crank up the 'row of
fillings' value too, & you wouldn't get the crazy result.

Mantik points out it's only in fact with *dual-emulsion* film that he


could make a decent forgery. Until he discovered it was in use in 63, he
couldn't see how any forgery could have been accomplished.

Paul S.

Paul Seaton

unread,
Jan 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/4/00
to

Joe Durnavich wrote in message ...


>


>Mantik says the white patch is "almost as lucent as the densest bone in
>the body". The relative densities are still correct.


Ok. Point taken. So by that token, it should be possible to take the
pre-mortem lateral and by monkeying with the contrast & lightness of it to
produce an image with the qualities of the post mortem lateral,..ie..
white patch 'almost' as lucent as the ear canal area etc. ..EXCEPT that
the result should be in places a little LIGHTER than the post mortem
lateral to allow for the fact that some brain is missing in the latter. (I
mean to speak only of the back of the head here. .. the front is too
fragmented for comparison, I think)

Every which way I try it, I end up with a few obstinate patches that are
DARKER than the post mortem. In a distinctive pattern , two dark patches
at the top, one to the rear, two at the bottom...(one of which is the
mastoid sinus). Rather than there being something missing on the 'dead'
xRay, there even appears to be some kind of extra stuff within. Maybe they
took it after filling (the back of ) his skull with plaster of paris. (I
think I'm joking).

Anyway, standing challenge to Joe. Start with the premortem lateral and by
playing with the contrast & brightness (only those two, please, scout's
honour) come up with something that has the 'almost' very odd properties
of the post mort. lateral.

>
>>Same applies to the 6.5mm frag on the AP. Mantik says it's *denser* than
>>the accumulated densities of all JFK's dental fillings , seen 'end on'.


>


>I disagree with Mantik here. The AP is Modified Waters, so the dental
>fillings don't "stack up" in the image. The teeth are in a "frown" shape
>(see the non-enhanced AP).


Ass. Sci. p131:......


"Next I looked at the teeth. The teeth are not seen in the prints in this
book-or
anywhere else for that matter. But they are very easy to
see on the X-ray films.
Kennedy had extensive dental repairs; except for the incisors and
canines, he had
fillings almost everywhere. Most of these amalgams were probably
inserted during
his pre-adult years and (typically) would have been composed of nearly
equal parts
of mercury and silver. Both of these elements have high atomic numbers
and there-
fore would naturally appear transparent on an X-ray film. .........

..................... On the AP, these amal-
gams mostly overlap one another-they are like a long slab of dense
mercury and
silver that is many centimeters long. .................


.............. The reason these dental amalgams important
is that the teeth can serve as a superb measuring stick for how much
metal there is
in other objects on the same film (in a relative sense). In particular,
I had found that
the OD of the 6.5 mm object on the AP was about 0.6, which suggested that
it was
very thick (from front to back). So I wondered how this would compare to
the
amalgams.
As I expected, these amalgams were quite transparent. The ODs on the
right
side of the AP view were about 0.78; on the left, they were 0.74, on
average (see
Table 2). These values all imply less metal (front to back) than for the
6.5 mm
object! How could that be? How could the 6.5 mm object be longer (front
to back)
than all of those dental amalgams added together? On the lateral film, I
could see
with my eyes that this 6.5 mm object was only 3-4 mm thick (from front to
back)-
that was clearly much, much thinner than all of those dental fillings all
lined up-
by almost a factor of 10"

Maybe he means the BOTTOM teeth? If you're right, he's more or less flat
out lying, which I don't tend to believe.

>
>>Mantik points out it's only in fact with *dual-emulsion* film that he
>>could make a decent forgery. Until he discovered it was in use in 63, he
>>couldn't see how any forgery could have been accomplished.
>

>Copy film existed back then. X-rays were normally copied to
>single-emulsion film. (One of the techs at his ARRB deposition checked
>the film to make sure it wasn't single-emulsion which would mean it was a
>copy.) Mantik means that copies on modern dual-emulsion film are not
>possible. They are possible on 1963 era film, but he hasn't studied any
>actual examples.
>
>The problem with copying to dual-emulsion film is that you have to get the
>light to pass through one layer onto the other and give an exposure that
>is as good as the other side. This is why I wondered about the effect of
>Reed's placing two sheets of film in each cassette.

Ass Sci 134:..........

"In those days, hardly anybody (perhaps no one) used single emulsion
du-
plicating film like everyone does today. The Kodak catalog from 1963
does not
list it, although it does appear in catalogs from a few years later.
Instead, every-
body made duplicates by using regular double emulsion film-only they had
to
be clever about it. I slowly discovered all of this in talking to older
technicians
and radiologists. It was the technicians especially who remembered
this, be-
cause they were the ones who had to do it! And as I searched the old
textbooks
I was amazed at what I found. They contained detailed recipes for
copying film
onto standard double emulsion films-down to the second in exposure time
(Cahoon, 1961, pp. 40-43). This was all done with a simple light box-no
X-
rays were needed. And this same author (a radiologist) even said that
this tech-
nique was so good that it was hard to tell the original (Figure 15A)
from the
copy (Figure 15B), and to prove his point, he printed them side by side.
At least
in the book, I couldn't tell them apart either.
So this mystique about the immutability of X-ray films (at least in
that era)
was wrong. "

Sounds good to me.
What's the problem with this?


Paul S.

Joe Durnavich

unread,
Jan 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/4/00
to
Paul Seaton writes:

>Joe Durnavich wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>Mantik says the white patch is "almost as lucent as the densest bone in
>>the body". The relative densities are still correct.
>
>
>Ok. Point taken. So by that token, it should be possible to take the
>pre-mortem lateral and by monkeying with the contrast & lightness of it to
>produce an image with the qualities of the post mortem lateral,..ie..
>white patch 'almost' as lucent as the ear canal area etc. ..EXCEPT that
>the result should be in places a little LIGHTER than the post mortem
>lateral to allow for the fact that some brain is missing in the latter. (I
>mean to speak only of the back of the head here. .. the front is too
>fragmented for comparison, I think)

The missing brain is mostly in the top of the skull. Mantik has a
graphic that he drew a line around his "suspicious" region on page 160
of AS. Most of the missing brain is above and forward of this circle.


>Every which way I try it, I end up with a few obstinate patches that are
>DARKER than the post mortem. In a distinctive pattern , two dark patches
>at the top, one to the rear, two at the bottom...(one of which is the
>mastoid sinus). Rather than there being something missing on the 'dead'
>xRay, there even appears to be some kind of extra stuff within. Maybe they
>took it after filling (the back of ) his skull with plaster of paris. (I
>think I'm joking).
>
>Anyway, standing challenge to Joe. Start with the premortem lateral and by
>playing with the contrast & brightness (only those two, please, scout's
>honour) come up with something that has the 'almost' very odd properties
>of the post mort. lateral.

First of all, you are working with scans from reproductions in books.
There is not enough tonal range encoded in the halftone patterns. You
should work with drum scans of the original X-rays. (The pre-mortem
X-ray is at the JFK Library and the autopsy X-rays are at the National
Archives II.) With a limited tonal range, several shades of gray are
printed as a single shade of gray. This may throw away enough
information that you can't process one X-ray into another. For
instance, some of the mastoid cells and much of the left sphenoidal
sinus (the dark area with the hook in it) are pure black in the
printed version. On the original X-ray, the mastoid cells are
probably not pure black. If you had a good scan of it, you could
brighten the mastoid cells and keep the sphenoidal sinus dark. You
can't do that with the printed version.

Second, and more importantly, the characteristic curve of film is not
linear over its whole range. Simple brightness and contrast changes
do not duplicate what happens during exposure and development. Use
the Curves tool on your image editor if it has one. This way, you can
adjust the contrast of the dark areas separate from the lighter ones.

Third, if you are trying to match the enhanced AP X-ray, you have a
lot more work to do.


>>>Same applies to the 6.5mm frag on the AP. Mantik says it's *denser* than
>>>the accumulated densities of all JFK's dental fillings , seen 'end on'.
>
>
>>
>>I disagree with Mantik here. The AP is Modified Waters, so the dental
>>fillings don't "stack up" in the image. The teeth are in a "frown" shape
>>(see the non-enhanced AP).
>
>
>Ass. Sci. p131:......

>
>
>"Next I looked at the teeth. The teeth are not seen in the prints in this
>book-or
> anywhere else for that matter. But they are very easy to
>see on the X-ray films.

The teeth are visible in the non-enhanced AP. Just look at the title
page of my essay on the X-rays. Take a look at:

ftp://ftp.mcs.net/mcsnet.users/joejd/projcomp.gif

The right image is a Modified Waters. You can see how the dental
fillings aren't in a straight line in this projection.

Notice that Mantik never publishes any data on how his forgery
experiments hold up under the scrutiny of the densitometer. It is one
thing for two images in a book to look similar. It is another matter
for them to look the same in real life, especially if you have
equipment like densitometers and microscopes.

And sure, he can get black scissors superimposed on a skull on
single-emulsion film. But the JFK films are dual-emulsion with white
fragments. Plus, there are those pesky grid lines to deal with--60 to
the inch. He has to superimpose those too in his forged regions with
perfect alignment. Also, X-ray film is negative film. To make a
positive image, you have to overexpose the hell out of it and process
it specially. This also has to withstand the scrutiny of history.

--
Joe Durnavich


Paul Seaton

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to

Joe Durnavich wrote in message ...
>Paul Seaton writes:
>
>>Joe Durnavich wrote in message ...
>
>The missing brain is mostly in the top of the skull. Mantik has a
>graphic that he drew a line around his "suspicious" region on page 160
>of AS. Most of the missing brain is above and forward of this circle.

Then the backs of the skulls should be more or less comparable. I'm sure
you're right that a lot of fine gradation is lost in printing the xrays.
But the 'brightness pecking order...."..brightest, bright, less bright,
............etc is maintained. Or should be.

I don't see how 'being printed in a book' could affect this.


>
>
>First of all, you are working with scans from reproductions in books.
>There is not enough tonal range encoded in the halftone patterns. You
>should work with drum scans of the original X-rays.

Sauce for the goose, etc.
Both xrays (premortem/post mortem) are limited the same way.

"There is not enough tonal range encoded in the halftone patterns."

should apply to BOTH. As a general point there is more variety of tonal
range in the back of the head in the premortem lateral than there is in
the post mort. Messing with 'curves' contrast or brightness on the
premortem to bring the two into agreement 'back of the head-wise' leaves
the xrays looking wildly dissimilar everywhere else. Of course all this
really PROVES nothing, I agree, but it's suggestive, at least to me.

The situation is then, (according to you):

1) Arguments from the published reproductions are futile, as there is too
much information lost in printing to the page, plus the images are
'enhanced', god knows exactly how, etc.

2) Mantik's arguments from the originals are flawed, because he thinks
teeth are lined up when they're not & the ORIGINAL xrays are flawed &/or
unusual for being way overexposed, over contrasty....whatever.

3)Finally, the 'Mantik Forgery Process' would not produce anything that
would fool an expert armed with a microscope & a densitometer.

Maybe Mike Griffiths can put these points to Mantik?

>The teeth are visible in the non-enhanced AP. Just look at the title
>page of my essay on the X-rays. Take a look at:
>
>ftp://ftp.mcs.net/mcsnet.users/joejd/projcomp.gif
>
>The right image is a Modified Waters. You can see how the dental
>fillings aren't in a straight line in this projection.

As I said, maybe he means the BOTTOM row of teeth. If the jaw was hanging
open 20 degrees or so, the bottom fillings would line up.

>Notice that Mantik never publishes any data on how his forgery
>experiments hold up under the scrutiny of the densitometer. It is one
>thing for two images in a book to look similar. It is another matter
>for them to look the same in real life, especially if you have
>equipment like densitometers and microscopes.

But the only person I know of to examine the JFK Xrays with these tools is
Mantik himself. And he says he finds anomalies. Nobody found them till he
came along with his densitometer. Consequently , if forged, the JFK Xrays
stood up to scrutiny UNTIL someone came along with these tools. Unless you
know of other exams of the xrays with these tools, that found NO
anomalies?

(I'm not 100% clear exactly what's been done by way of authentication,
officially.)


>
>And sure, he can get black scissors superimposed on a skull on
>single-emulsion film. But the JFK films are dual-emulsion with white
>fragments. Plus, there are those pesky grid lines to deal with--60 to
>the inch.

You're saying there's no way these would 'copy through' to both sides,
using dual emulsion film? (I don't have any opinion. I don't know. Should
be pretty obvious....(:-) )


He has to superimpose those too in his forged regions with
>perfect alignment.

"After the original image was produced by xray copying machine, & before
development, a 2nd image was most likely superimposed on the first.." (Ass
Sci p156)

The first part of the process gets you the lines, the 2nd the 'alteration'.

Unless there are lines on the 'alteration' I don't see that any lines need
lining up. You just superimpose on the original lines.


Also, X-ray film is negative film. To make a
>positive image, you have to overexpose the hell out of it and process
>it specially.

Now you lost me utterly. Are the jfk xrays we normally see positive or
negative?


> This also has to withstand the scrutiny of history.

If History can get the OK from Burke Marshall, that is.
Maybe History should give him a call.

Paul.

Joe Durnavich

unread,
Jan 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/5/00
to
Paul Seaton writes:

>Joe Durnavich wrote in message ...
>>Paul Seaton writes:
>>
>>>Joe Durnavich wrote in message ...
>>

>>First of all, you are working with scans from reproductions in books.
>>There is not enough tonal range encoded in the halftone patterns. You
>>should work with drum scans of the original X-rays.
>

>Sauce for the goose, etc.
>Both xrays (premortem/post mortem) are limited the same way.

This doesn't matter because the post mortem is the target, the final
result. If needed information is missing when you start with the
pre-mortem, you will never get it back later.


> "There is not enough tonal range encoded in the halftone patterns."

>should apply to BOTH. As a general point there is more variety of tonal
>range in the back of the head in the premortem lateral than there is in
>the post mort. Messing with 'curves' contrast or brightness on the
>premortem to bring the two into agreement 'back of the head-wise' leaves
>the xrays looking wildly dissimilar everywhere else. Of course all this
>really PROVES nothing, I agree, but it's suggestive, at least to me.
>
>The situation is then, (according to you):
>
>1) Arguments from the published reproductions are futile, as there is too
>much information lost in printing to the page, plus the images are
>'enhanced', god knows exactly how, etc.

Let me add that the source of the X-rays was the body--not another
X-ray.

Let me ask you this: do you agree that the shape of the bright white
patch area on the autopsy X-ray is visible on the pre-mortem X-ray? I
can see it easily and I marked it here (top 2 images):

ftp://ftp.mcs.net/mcsnet.users/joejd/blob.jpg


Are there any areas on the autopsy X-ray that are non-anatomical
(other than bullet fragments)?


>>Notice that Mantik never publishes any data on how his forgery
>>experiments hold up under the scrutiny of the densitometer. It is one
>>thing for two images in a book to look similar. It is another matter
>>for them to look the same in real life, especially if you have
>>equipment like densitometers and microscopes.
>

>But the only person I know of to examine the JFK Xrays with these tools is
>Mantik himself. And he says he finds anomalies. Nobody found them till he
>came along with his densitometer. Consequently , if forged, the JFK Xrays
>stood up to scrutiny UNTIL someone came along with these tools. Unless you
>know of other exams of the xrays with these tools, that found NO
>anomalies?

Nobody is doubting Mantik's data on the JFK X-rays. This is type of
analysis we should see more of. However, pay close attention to what
he does. He starts his article with a scientific analysis of the JFK
X-rays with formulas, photos, and graphs. Then he suggests a specific
technique was used to forge the X-rays and he describes various
methods and experiments he has done. But he presents no data, no
formulas, photos, and graphs. The suggestion is that the conclusion
of forgery is arrived at by a method as scientific and rigorous as the
initial analysis of the autopsy X-rays. We have been lead astray by
the conjuror's misdirection.


>(I'm not 100% clear exactly what's been done by way of authentication,
>officially.)
>>

>>And sure, he can get black scissors superimposed on a skull on
>>single-emulsion film. But the JFK films are dual-emulsion with white
>>fragments. Plus, there are those pesky grid lines to deal with--60 to
>>the inch.
>

>You're saying there's no way these would 'copy through' to both sides,
>using dual emulsion film? (I don't have any opinion. I don't know. Should
>be pretty obvious....(:-) )

No, they will copy through, but I suspect one side will be darker and
perhaps slightly more blurred than the other. There should be plenty
of ways to analyze the films to see if they are copies. For one, the
copy will be a copy of both emulsion layers of the original. Images
of fixer stains and other development defects are a dead giveaway too.


>He has to superimpose those too in his forged regions with
>>perfect alignment.
>

>"After the original image was produced by xray copying machine, & before
>development, a 2nd image was most likely superimposed on the first.." (Ass
>Sci p156)
>
>The first part of the process gets you the lines, the 2nd the 'alteration'.
>
>Unless there are lines on the 'alteration' I don't see that any lines need
>lining up. You just superimpose on the original lines.

This is why I want to see Mantik take his densitometer to his
forgeries. I want to see him duplicate the graph on page 129 (Figure
5) of AS. If you superimposed a lighter region on top of an existing
latent image, the grid lines, and everything else, in that region will
become lighter than they should be or perhaps burn out completely.
(Although, I suspect that the grid lines aren't visible at all in the
extreme regions.) Special effects are not easy. Normally, you have
to matte out (black out) the area you want to replace and drop in a
whole new replacement image.


>Also, X-ray film is negative film. To make a
>>positive image, you have to overexpose the hell out of it and process
>>it specially.
>

>Now you lost me utterly. Are the jfk xrays we normally see positive or
>negative?

This is going to be confusing however I explain it: If you make a
copy, and the copy does not reverse the image, then in one sense the
copy is a positive or reversal. (Slide film is also called reversal
film.) The forgers would have to either copy twice to get back to the
proper look of an X-ray, or use special reversal exposure and
processing techniques.


>> This also has to withstand the scrutiny of history.
>

>If History can get the OK from Burke Marshall, that is.
>Maybe History should give him a call.

The Clark Panel, Lattimer, McDonnel, Davis, Angel, Artwohl, Mantik
etc. all had access. That said, I wouldn't mind getting a look at the
X-rays and photos. The NA didn't digitize the X-rays like they just
did to all the photos, so unfortunately, the X-rays are probably going
to keep deteriorating over time.

--
Joe Durnavich


Paul Seaton

unread,
Jan 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/6/00
to

Joe Durnavich wrote in message
<2tv77scrvgnj90r6c...@4ax.com>...

>Paul Seaton writes:
>
>>Joe Durnavich wrote in message ...
>>>Paul Seaton writes:

>>Both xrays (premortem/post mortem) are limited the same way.
>
>This doesn't matter because the post mortem is the target, the final
>result. If needed information is missing when you start with the
>pre-mortem, you will never get it back later.

Well, first I'd say the premort is the better XRay. And it codes more info
about the back of the head, for example. It has gradations where the other
doesn't.

So my thought was, to (intentionally) degrade that (premort) xray to the
lousy state of the post, as near as possible. This would involve only loss
of information, & consequently should be possible. Then compare. Now, this
won't really settle anything of course. But it's suggestive. Have a look
at the light/dark map of the rear of the head on your own image (below).
You can see the dark areas of difference with respect to the post xray.
Two at the bottom, (mastoid is one)..one at the left..two maybe three at
the top. If you crank up the brightness to wipe 'em off the pre., you wash
the whole thing out.

Also I can see that an Xray can be overexposed, in which case (let me
think) it'll turn black by degrees all over, or underexposed in which case
it'll come out white in varying degrees all over. Under or over developing
should have analogous results. Consequently I can't get my head around an
Xray which is simultaneously too dark & too light. (Mantik's OD anomaly).

(It is true incidentally that all the published/printed versions of the
lateral I can find have NO repeat NO discernable density whatever in the
right frontal region. Get the best copy you can & "invert" or "negativise
" it. The region comes out as blank paper. Zilch. As if there was no bone
left or right & no brain either. Now you would think this was just a loss
of information down to the decision which 'bands' of light/dark to bring
out in print. But Mantik says it's same story on the actual XRay. Making
me think they were overexposed. But the back is too white.... So they were
underexposed. Maybe they used ultra high contrast film or something. Or
maybe Mantik has a point .) > > > >Let me ask you this: do you agree that


the shape of the bright white >patch area on the autopsy X-ray is visible
on the pre-mortem X-ray? I >can see it easily and I marked it here (top 2
images): > >ftp://ftp.mcs.net/mcsnet.users/joejd/blob.jpg

Well, kind of. But there are those other patches of dark on the pre that
aren't on the post.

I think we need someone in radiology to find the absolute WORST xrays they
can find & measure the OD's on them.

The challenge to you would be to get readings comparable to Mantiks this
way. And the challenge to Mantik would be to produce a (maybe green)
forgery with the lines all over both emulsions.


>
>
>Are there any areas on the autopsy X-ray that are non-anatomical
>(other than bullet fragments)?

I wish I knew. All I can say is the back of the head does look kind of
white to me, & that I have big problems with the 6.5mm fragment. We never
got into Mantik's analysis of the AP versus lateral views of that. (Also
you didn't answer me about the bottom teeth. )

>
>
>Nobody is doubting Mantik's data on the JFK X-rays. This is type of
>analysis we should see more of. However, pay close attention to what
>he does. He starts his article with a scientific analysis of the JFK
>X-rays with formulas, photos, and graphs. Then he suggests a specific
>technique was used to forge the X-rays and he describes various
>methods and experiments he has done. But he presents no data, no
>formulas, photos, and graphs.


Well, the suggestion is that as I understand it he can't get hold of the
old kind of double emulsion film which can ( could) be used to copy (to
both sides) without the whole thing turning green. So the clincher of his
'it's possible' argument is to point to a demo in an old book (Cahoon 1961
etc) & quote the author saying "their technique was so good it was hard to
tell the original from the copy".

I don't know if Mantik could do a forgery demo on modern double emulsion
film & just explain to everyone why it was so green.

He gives the impression he could.

Now, what the point of making OD measurements on his own forgeries would
be escapes me. If they measured within 'normal limits' that would be good
from his point of view, but if they were way outside normal limits, that
would just correlate well to what he says about the JFK 'forgeries'.

The acid test would be to get him to demonstrate with old (pre 64?) double
sided film.

Otherwise do it with modern double sided & accept it's going to be a wierd
colour.

The suggestion is that the conclusion
>of forgery is arrived at by a method as scientific and rigorous as the
>initial analysis of the autopsy X-rays. We have been lead astray by
>the conjuror's misdirection.

Well, if he's right about the teeth, it's pretty rigorous.

>
>
>
>No, they will copy through, but I suspect one side will be darker and
>perhaps slightly more blurred than the other. There should be plenty
>of ways to analyze the films to see if they are copies. For one, the
>copy will be a copy of both emulsion layers of the original.

Would that be discernable?
Sounds like a nice idea to follow up.

> Images
>of fixer stains and other development defects are a dead giveaway too.

But no-one has ever tested for these things, except maybe Mantik himself.
So no one knows how the JFK Xrays would stand up. So it sounds premature
to be judging the issue (& Mantik) before this evidence is in. Doesn't it?

>
>This is why I want to see Mantik take his densitometer to his
>forgeries. I want to see him duplicate the graph on page 129 (Figure
>5) of AS. If you superimposed a lighter region on top of an existing
>latent image, the grid lines, and everything else, in that region will
>become lighter than they should be or perhaps burn out completely.
>(Although, I suspect that the grid lines aren't visible at all in the
>extreme regions.) Special effects are not easy. Normally, you have
>to matte out (black out) the area you want to replace and drop in a
>whole new replacement image.

Ah, but you seem to be shrinking back a little from giving the impression
to the layman "It can't be done" to saying "It would be difficult & the
grid lines would burn out" Not the same thing.

>
>
>>Also, X-ray film is negative film. To make a
>>>positive image, you have to overexpose the hell out of it and process
>>>it specially.
>>
>>Now you lost me utterly. Are the jfk xrays we normally see positive or
>>negative?
>
>This is going to be confusing however I explain it: If you make a
>copy, and the copy does not reverse the image, then in one sense the
>copy is a positive or reversal. (Slide film is also called reversal
>film.) The forgers would have to either copy twice to get back to the
>proper look of an X-ray, or use special reversal exposure and
>processing techniques.

Still somewhat lost. Mantik says it could be done just with a light box.
You mean this would give you the 'opposite' of what you're copying? So
you'd have to copy the copy to get something that looked right (ish)?

>
>
>>> This also has to withstand the scrutiny of history.
>>
>>If History can get the OK from Burke Marshall, that is.
>>Maybe History should give him a call.
>
>The Clark Panel, Lattimer, McDonnel, Davis, Angel, Artwohl, Mantik
>etc. all had access.

Ah, but does History work for the US Government? Could History get in as a
private individual? (Joke..I know Mantik was just that & Lattimer probably
Artwohl , though I don't know much about him.)


That said, I wouldn't mind getting a look at the
>X-rays and photos. The NA didn't digitize the X-rays like they just
>did to all the photos, so unfortunately, the X-rays are probably going
>to keep deteriorating over time.

Well, if you get in, you'd better take Harry Livingstone with you, so
justice can be seen to be done.

Let me try to sum all this up.

You say the vast OD differences are due to poor technique, overdeveloping,
overexposure etc. I think you've raised the possibility that they COULD
be, tho' it seems unlikely to me. (Admittedly no expert)

You've raised the 'grid lines' problem, but it seems only careful & minute
analysis of the JFK Xrays would settle whether there's a problem.

You raised the 'non lined up teeth problem' & I suggested maybe he was
talking about the bottom row of teeth. Since these aren't published, we'll
have to await Mantik's comments on this.


Paul S.

Joe Durnavich

unread,
Jan 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/7/00
to
Paul Seaton writes:

>Also I can see that an Xray can be overexposed, in which case (let me
>think) it'll turn black by degrees all over, or underexposed in which case
>it'll come out white in varying degrees all over.

Actually, film is not linear over its whole exposure range. It is
possible for the very light areas to stay light while the dark areas
get more dense. I bet petrous bones almost always come out light
regardless of the exposure (within limits, of course).


>Under or over developing should have analogous results.

Developing time and temperature directly affect the contrast. As the
film sits in the developer longer, or if the developer's temperature
rises a few degrees, the denser areas become denser quicker than the
less denser areas. In black and white photography (quite similar to
X-ray film development), you usually expose enough to get the shadow
detail to a particular density on the negative, and then develop long
enough to get the highlights to the desired density. Generally, the
shadow areas (light on the negative) don't increase in density with
increased development time. The difference in density between
highlights and shadows is, of course, contrast.

>Consequently I can't get my head around an
>Xray which is simultaneously too dark & too light. (Mantik's OD anomaly).

We have to be open to the possibility of a combination of factors.
Brain and bone are missing and air is in areas it shouldn't be. Some
of the extra darkness is no doubt due to this.

Zavada made an interesting comment in his report. He asked
radiologists about the appearance of the X-rays and they told him "the
portable equipment used and the exposure level chosen for autopsy


X-rays fulfill an objective to detect metal. This practice generally

results in overall poorer quality images for other analysis." The
primary purpose of the X-rays was to find a bullet. The exposure and
contrast level may very well have been optimized for this purpose.

When Ebersole was looking at the X-rays for the HSCA, he noted how
much better the fragment X-rays looked, which were made on the normal
X-ray equipment, compared to the ones made on the portable equipment.
Also, Reed wasn't involved in the fragment X-rays at all. Custer did
those. There may be something different in their techniques (Custer
doesn't describe loading the cassettes with two sheets of film for
example.)


>(It is true incidentally that all the published/printed versions of the
>lateral I can find have NO repeat NO discernable density whatever in the
>right frontal region. Get the best copy you can & "invert" or "negativise
>" it. The region comes out as blank paper. Zilch. As if there was no bone
>left or right & no brain either. Now you would think this was just a loss
>of information down to the decision which 'bands' of light/dark to bring
>out in print. But Mantik says it's same story on the actual XRay. Making
>me think they were overexposed.

They are overexposed or overdeveloped. But then again, these areas
are naturally darker in normal X-rays (I believe the bone is thinner
towards the front), plus some brain matter may be missing and I think
one of the radiologists mentioned air in the sinuses.


>But the back is too white.... So they were
>underexposed. Maybe they used ultra high contrast film or something. Or
>maybe Mantik has a point .)

Or perhaps Zavada is on to something. Perhaps they were exposed and
developed purposely to make dense objects, like bullets and bullet
fragments, stand out from tissue and bone.


>The challenge to you would be to get readings comparable to Mantiks this
>way. And the challenge to Mantik would be to produce a (maybe green)
>forgery with the lines all over both emulsions.

I think the focus needs to be on the JFK X-rays! If I am able to
duplicate the JKF X-rays through normal techniques, and Mantik is able
to duplicate them through forgery, then we will have answered nothing.


>>Are there any areas on the autopsy X-ray that are non-anatomical
>>(other than bullet fragments)?
>
>I wish I knew. All I can say is the back of the head does look kind of
>white to me, & that I have big problems with the 6.5mm fragment. We never
>got into Mantik's analysis of the AP versus lateral views of that. (Also
>you didn't answer me about the bottom teeth. )

I was looking for a better copy of the non-enhanced AP to see if I can
make out the bottom row of teeth.


>>Nobody is doubting Mantik's data on the JFK X-rays. This is type of
>>analysis we should see more of. However, pay close attention to what
>>he does. He starts his article with a scientific analysis of the JFK
>>X-rays with formulas, photos, and graphs. Then he suggests a specific
>>technique was used to forge the X-rays and he describes various
>>methods and experiments he has done. But he presents no data, no
>>formulas, photos, and graphs.
>
>Well, the suggestion is that as I understand it he can't get hold of the
>old kind of double emulsion film which can ( could) be used to copy (to
>both sides) without the whole thing turning green. So the clincher of his
>'it's possible' argument is to point to a demo in an old book (Cahoon 1961
>etc) & quote the author saying "their technique was so good it was hard to
>tell the original from the copy".

Yeah, but they were still able to tell the difference. The purpose of
these copies is not to forge X-rays, but to make copies, such as if
you want your doctor to give copies of your X-rays to another doctor.
The claim being examined here is that X-rays can be forged by a
certain method and such a method is undetectable.


>I don't know if Mantik could do a forgery demo on modern double emulsion
>film & just explain to everyone why it was so green.
>
>He gives the impression he could.

Another problem he would have is that the light would not cross over
to the other emulsion (this is the purpose of the dye--to keep the
light on one side).


> The suggestion is that the conclusion
>>of forgery is arrived at by a method as scientific and rigorous as the
>>initial analysis of the autopsy X-rays. We have been lead astray by
>>the conjuror's misdirection.
>
>Well, if he's right about the teeth, it's pretty rigorous.

You see what I mean? You can't even see the magic trick Mantik is
pulling on you for what it is.


>>No, they will copy through, but I suspect one side will be darker and
>>perhaps slightly more blurred than the other. There should be plenty
>>of ways to analyze the films to see if they are copies. For one, the
>>copy will be a copy of both emulsion layers of the original.
>
>Would that be discernable?
>Sounds like a nice idea to follow up.

Mantik did discover that a microscope allowed him to focus on each
layer separately.


>> Images
>>of fixer stains and other development defects are a dead giveaway too.
>
>But no-one has ever tested for these things, except maybe Mantik himself.
>So no one knows how the JFK Xrays would stand up. So it sounds premature
>to be judging the issue (& Mantik) before this evidence is in. Doesn't it?

I'm trying to point out how difficult it is to forge an X-ray that
totally escapes detection. Most developed films have minor defects
like emulsion scratches, dust, hairs, water spots, etc. X-rays films
are rush processed so one would expect some defects. A scratch on the
original will not be a scratch on the copy, but an image of a scratch.
(I think the HSCA looked for these, but I'm not in the mood right now
to go looking for the reference to see if I remember right.)

The mind reels with opportunities to detect forgery on X-rays. The
image on the X-ray comes from the intensifying screens. These are
rather low in resolution, usually 150 to 200 dots per inch. A copy
with superimposed false images will not be so limited. A high-pass
filter (which can be done optically) will bring out these forged
details. The forgers would have to be out of their minds to think
they could get away with it, and for what purpose? The existing
evidence already pointed to Oswald and his MC.


>>This is why I want to see Mantik take his densitometer to his
>>forgeries. I want to see him duplicate the graph on page 129 (Figure
>>5) of AS. If you superimposed a lighter region on top of an existing
>>latent image, the grid lines, and everything else, in that region will
>>become lighter than they should be or perhaps burn out completely.
>>(Although, I suspect that the grid lines aren't visible at all in the
>>extreme regions.) Special effects are not easy. Normally, you have
>>to matte out (black out) the area you want to replace and drop in a
>>whole new replacement image.
>
>Ah, but you seem to be shrinking back a little from giving the impression
>to the layman "It can't be done" to saying "It would be difficult & the
>grid lines would burn out" Not the same thing.

Actually, I don't see how that graph can be arrived at through forgery
in the manner Mantik describes. I briefly debated him on this issue
and he resorted to ad hoc scenarios like the forgers created a mask by
X-raying an arranged pile of iron filings to get a particular OD
distribution. My response is that if the forgers were this concerned
about OD, why did they produce X-rays that have non-typical OD curves?


>>>Also, X-ray film is negative film. To make a
>>>>positive image, you have to overexpose the hell out of it and process
>>>>it specially.
>>>
>>>Now you lost me utterly. Are the jfk xrays we normally see positive or
>>>negative?
>>
>>This is going to be confusing however I explain it: If you make a
>>copy, and the copy does not reverse the image, then in one sense the
>>copy is a positive or reversal. (Slide film is also called reversal
>>film.) The forgers would have to either copy twice to get back to the
>>proper look of an X-ray, or use special reversal exposure and
>>processing techniques.
>
>Still somewhat lost. Mantik says it could be done just with a light box.
>You mean this would give you the 'opposite' of what you're copying? So
>you'd have to copy the copy to get something that looked right (ish)?

Yes, it can be done with a light box, but not normally. If you
severely overexpose a negative film, it causes it to become a positive
film (that is, it doesn't reverse the image). But I don't think the
density curve is symmetrical, that is, you might not be able to record
the wide density range Mantik sees on the X-rays. Or, I believe you
can expose normally and process the film specially to get it to be a
positive. This involves a bleaching stage so there may be tell-tale
chemical signs the X-ray is a copy.


>That said, I wouldn't mind getting a look at the
>>X-rays and photos. The NA didn't digitize the X-rays like they just
>>did to all the photos, so unfortunately, the X-rays are probably going
>>to keep deteriorating over time.
>
>Well, if you get in, you'd better take Harry Livingstone with you, so
>justice can be seen to be done.

You've got to be kidding me. Livingstone has zero interest in solving
the crime and in explaining the evidence.

--
Joe Durnavich


Paul Seaton

unread,
Jan 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/8/00
to

Joe Durnavich wrote in message ...

>


>Zavada made an interesting comment in his report. He asked
>radiologists about the appearance of the X-rays and they told him "the
>portable equipment used and the exposure level chosen for autopsy
>X-rays fulfill an objective to detect metal. This practice generally
>results in overall poorer quality images for other analysis." The
>primary purpose of the X-rays was to find a bullet. The exposure and
>contrast level may very well have been optimized for this purpose.

The only reference I've seen to Zavada re the Xrays was an appended sentence
to his Zapruder analysis.
"Lines on the xRay same pitch as tv tube lines " or something.
I've always meant to ask if he examined the Xrays in detail.
If you have more, could you post, or mail it or something?

>
>When Ebersole was looking at the X-rays for the HSCA, he noted how
>much better the fragment X-rays looked, which were made on the normal
>X-ray equipment, compared to the ones made on the portable equipment.
>Also, Reed wasn't involved in the fragment X-rays at all. Custer did
>those. There may be something different in their techniques (Custer
>doesn't describe loading the cassettes with two sheets of film for
>example.)

OK.
I think the point is taken that you think these various factors caused
Mantik's wierd densities.
I'm not really in a position to argue.
But what would be conclusive would be if you could provide an actual xray
produced by your suggested methods that matches the characteristics of the
JFK Xrays.
I realise that s probably impossible, unless you're on very good terms with
the local xray dept.

>
>
>>(It is true incidentally that all the published/printed versions of the
>>lateral I can find have NO repeat NO discernable density whatever in the
>>right frontal region. Get the best copy you can & "invert" or "negativise
>>" it. The region comes out as blank paper. Zilch. As if there was no bone
>>left or right & no brain either. Now you would think this was just a loss
>>of information down to the decision which 'bands' of light/dark to bring
>>out in print. But Mantik says it's same story on the actual XRay. Making
>>me think they were overexposed.
>
>They are overexposed or overdeveloped. But then again, these areas
>are naturally darker in normal X-rays (I believe the bone is thinner
>towards the front), plus some brain matter may be missing and I think
>one of the radiologists mentioned air in the sinuses.

Yeah, but this is about a quarter of the cranium, Joe. That's one helluva
sinus. I think overexposure is the only possibility, since there's never
(yet) been a suggestion that the left front of the head was gone.

>
>
>>But the back is too white.... So they were
>>underexposed. Maybe they used ultra high contrast film or something. Or
>>maybe Mantik has a point .)
>
>Or perhaps Zavada is on to something. Perhaps they were exposed and
>developed purposely to make dense objects, like bullets and bullet
>fragments, stand out from tissue and bone.

Maybe. Did they do much "death by gunshot" at Bethesda?
I know Humes was out of his depth.
What about Ebersole?
What about Custer?
Did they do bullets on a day to day basis?
So that when JFK turned up they knew just how to pinpoint the bullets?
("Let's put that high contrast film in, Jerrol. And make sure you
overdevelop!")
I don't know.


>
>
>>The challenge to you would be to get readings comparable to Mantiks this
>>way. And the challenge to Mantik would be to produce a (maybe green)
>>forgery with the lines all over both emulsions.
>
>I think the focus needs to be on the JFK X-rays! If I am able to
>duplicate the JKF X-rays through normal techniques, and Mantik is able
>to duplicate them through forgery, then we will have answered nothing.

But I thought you' were saying you could duplicate them through normal
techniques & Mantik COULDN'T duplicate them through forgery?
(At least not to a high enough standard to survive even the basic
examination the JFK xrays have undergone at the hands of everyone EXCEPT
Mantik, of course, who says he DID find impossibilities about them.)

If you could convince me that your method of producing high contrast lousy
xrays would actually work, I'd look at Mantik a little more sceptically.
Now, you SAY you could.
And you can produce some explanations that make at least a plausible case
that you could.
Maybe someone skilled in xray technology would immediately agree with you &
say yes of course Durnavich is right.
But I'm not.
So....I have to suspend judgement.


>I was looking for a better copy of the non-enhanced AP to see if I can
>make out the bottom row of teeth.

I thought the Kennedy's made a stipulation against the teeth?
I was surprised at how much was visible on the unenhanced AP.

>
>
>>>Nobody is doubting Mantik's data on the JFK X-rays. This is type of
>>>analysis we should see more of. However, pay close attention to what
>>>he does. He starts his article with a scientific analysis of the JFK
>>>X-rays with formulas, photos, and graphs. Then he suggests a specific
>>>technique was used to forge the X-rays and he describes various
>>>methods and experiments he has done. But he presents no data, no
>>>formulas, photos, and graphs.
>>

>The claim being examined here is that X-rays can be forged by a
>certain method and such a method is undetectable.

No.
Hard to detect.
Remember Mantik says he detected forgery.
By means of the anomalous OD's.
So the claim would be xrays can be forged by a certain method & that such a
method is only detectable by minute analysis
by optical densitometry or whatever.

>
>Another problem he would have is that the light would not cross over
>to the other emulsion (this is the purpose of the dye--to keep the
>light on one side).


I wondered about that.
I must've missed Mantik's explanation, if he gave one.

>
>
>> The suggestion is that the conclusion
>>>of forgery is arrived at by a method as scientific and rigorous as the
>>>initial analysis of the autopsy X-rays. We have been lead astray by
>>>the conjuror's misdirection.
>>
>>Well, if he's right about the teeth, it's pretty rigorous.
>
>You see what I mean? You can't even see the magic trick Mantik is
>pulling on you for what it is.

Whoa! I think I would stand by that. If the 6.5mm fragment (a couple of mm
thick front to back) is more dense than a whole chunk of lined up
fillings, I would think that's a rigorous finding that would need some
explaining. I agree with you that the upper set of teeth do not appear to
be lined up this way on the AP. Since we don't know which teeth Mantik
used (I am assuming he's not flat out lying because that would be very
stupid and he doesn't appear to be the least stupid) I have to suspend
judgement on that too.


>
>
>>>No, they will copy through, but I suspect one side will be darker and
>>>perhaps slightly more blurred than the other. There should be plenty
>>>of ways to analyze the films to see if they are copies. For one, the
>>>copy will be a copy of both emulsion layers of the original.
>>
>>Would that be discernable?
>>Sounds like a nice idea to follow up.
>
>Mantik did discover that a microscope allowed him to focus on each
>layer separately.

So there might be two images, two sets of grid lines, exposed onto each
emulsion of the 'copy'?
Is that it?
It would be pretty subtle.


>
>
>>> Images
>>>of fixer stains and other development defects are a dead giveaway too.
>>
>>But no-one has ever tested for these things, except maybe Mantik himself.
>>So no one knows how the JFK Xrays would stand up. So it sounds premature
>>to be judging the issue (& Mantik) before this evidence is in. Doesn't it?
>
>I'm trying to point out how difficult it is to forge an X-ray that
>totally escapes detection.

But the JFK xrays HAVENT totally escaped detection. According to Mantik.
So you admit that producing a fake xray that *almost* escapes detection
would be possible?

Most developed films have minor defects
>like emulsion scratches, dust, hairs, water spots, etc. X-rays films
>are rush processed so one would expect some defects. A scratch on the
>original will not be a scratch on the copy, but an image of a scratch.
>(I think the HSCA looked for these, but I'm not in the mood right now
>to go looking for the reference to see if I remember right.)

I'd be interested to know.
I should get that 'Lancer' medical CD, I suppose.
Groan.
(I wonder if others on the newsgroup have my experience. Whenever the JFK
Assassination comes up in conversation with friends, my wife
twitches & she begins to plead with people "PLEEEEEEEASE don't get him (me)
going on that!!!!!! He'll be getting the Zapruder film out and showing you
the most horrible pictures of Kennedy's head.......and you'll NEVER get him
off the subject".
Incidentally most people I talk to about it here in England seem to assume
the CIA did it.
I think this is the legacy of "JFK" the movie.)


>
>The mind reels with opportunities to detect forgery on X-rays. The
>image on the X-ray comes from the intensifying screens. These are
>rather low in resolution, usually 150 to 200 dots per inch. A copy
>with superimposed false images will not be so limited. A high-pass
>filter (which can be done optically) will bring out these forged
>details.

I see what you mean.
It seems that it would be possible to prove they ARE forged, but impossible
to prove they aren't.
Quite seriously, I wonder what Mr Marshall is looking for by way of
credentials when he gets a request to see them?


The forgers would have to be out of their minds to think
>they could get away with it, and for what purpose? The existing
>evidence already pointed to Oswald and his MC.

Maybe the Xray evidence would have contradicted the existing evidence?
(In fact of course according to Clark/HSCA it DID contradict the existing
evidence. The existing evidence (autopsy report)
seemed to firmly point to a killer in the trunk of the limo. ( EOP entrance
etc. ....please don't think I take this as a serious possibility ..the
trunk..
maybe not the EOP...
I once posted a facetious post to the effect that the killer was in the
trunk & a lot of people took the trouble to put me right.:-) )


>
>
>
>Actually, I don't see how that graph can be arrived at through forgery
>in the manner Mantik describes.

You mean the OD's across the 6.5mm from two directions graph?

> I briefly debated him on this issue
>and he resorted to ad hoc scenarios like the forgers created a mask by
>X-raying an arranged pile of iron filings to get a particular OD
>distribution. My response is that if the forgers were this concerned
>about OD, why did they produce X-rays that have non-typical OD curves?

I'm tempted to ask for more details.


>
>
>>
>>Still somewhat lost. Mantik says it could be done just with a light box.
>>You mean this would give you the 'opposite' of what you're copying? So
>>you'd have to copy the copy to get something that looked right (ish)?
>
>Yes, it can be done with a light box, but not normally. If you
>severely overexpose a negative film, it causes it to become a positive
>film (that is, it doesn't reverse the image). But I don't think the
>density curve is symmetrical, that is, you might not be able to record
>the wide density range Mantik sees on the X-rays. Or, I believe you
>can expose normally and process the film specially to get it to be a
>positive. This involves a bleaching stage so there may be tell-tale
>chemical signs the X-ray is a copy.

Yup. "Lost" is the word.

>>Well, if you get in, you'd better take Harry Livingstone with you, so
>>justice can be seen to be done.
>
>You've got to be kidding me. Livingstone has zero interest in solving
>the crime and in explaining the evidence.

I have a soft spot for the guy.
Most of his theorising is as much garbage as anyone else's, but he has
conducted a lot of interviews particularly on the medical evidence and
published them and so forth.
But I yes ,WAS kidding.

Paul S.

Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Jan 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/18/00
to
In article <3869AD...@mu.edu>, John McAdams <6489mc...@mu.edu> writes:

>This is from the fellow who is "discovering" all kinds of "evidence"
>that the Z film if faked. I simply see no reason to take his
>"discovery" seriously.

Of course not, John. You'd rather believe Michael Baden, who testified
for OJ's defense twice and who supported Barry Scheck's whacky "delayed
head explosion" theory in the Woodward trial. You'd rather believe Martin
Fackler, who was thoroughly discredited at the Ruby Ridge trial, and who
declared, apparently with a straight face, that CE 399's alleged
trajectory was "absolutely typical." You'd rather believe John Lattimer,
who still espouses the neuromuscular-reaction theory, never mind that a
neuroscientist has said the theory is fantasy, and never mind that theory
posits a reaction time as fast as the fastest known involuntary response
but yet involves much more mass and movement. For that matter, Lattimer
argues that Kennedy was hit no later than Z221--unless he has conveniently
"changed his mind" to bring his views into harmony with the current
lone-gunman orthodoxy that the alleged magic-bullet hit occurred at Z224.

Michael T. Griffith

unread,
Jan 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/18/00
to
In article <lu0j6sgpk3c6kppqn...@4ax.com>, Joe Durnavich
<jo...@mcs.net> writes:

>Such images probably exist sitting in storage somewhere. I doubt the
>techs are proud of these and make little effort to advertise their
>existence. I just can't believe these were the first low quality
>X-rays to be produced in the history of radiography.

As I've said, all you've got to do is produce just one, just a single
solitary example of a contrast on the order of 1,000 times.

Paul Seaton

unread,
Jan 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/20/00
to
Joe,

If you're there at all............

I've been thinking about your explanations of the wierd 'contrast' (OD)
problems Mantik found with the Xrays. Off the top of my head, you,ve
suggested exposure times, development times, portable equipment, the fact
that they were only looking for bullets, and Custer's technique.......

I've just thought of an Xray taken presumably with the same exposure/
development settings, the same portable equipment, which was also taken
only looking for bullets and amazingly was also taken by Custer.

And it has none of the global 'too light & too dark' problems that we're
talking about, here.

In the sense that this would function as a kind of
'control'.......wouldn't you expect it to?


Paul S.

Joe Durnavich

unread,
Jan 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/20/00
to
Paul Seaton writes:

This demonstrates my point quite well. Nobody is offering an
EXPLANATION, including me. Just because Mantik can't explain the
X-rays does not automatically imply forgery. Conclusions must be
drawn from actual evidence. Saying, "I can't explain so-and-so" is
not evidence of anything other than ones own lack of knowledge.

Until an actual explanation is put forth, the matter of the OD
characteristics of the X-rays has to be left open.

--
Joe Durnavich


Paul Seaton

unread,
Jan 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/22/00
to

Joe Durnavich wrote in message ...

>This demonstrates my point quite well. Nobody is offering an


>EXPLANATION, including me. Just because Mantik can't explain the
>X-rays does not automatically imply forgery. Conclusions must be
>drawn from actual evidence. Saying, "I can't explain so-and-so" is
>not evidence of anything other than ones own lack of knowledge.

But Joe, Mantik maintains he CAN explain the Xrays, and he makes a pretty
good case of it. His casethat the luminosities at the back of the head are
downright peculiar is granted, even by you. Now, the usual scientific
procedure would then be to come up with an experiment which might be
expected to settle the matter. Sadly, Burke Marshall has the evidence and
keeps it pretty close to his chest.

On thinking over some of the points you have previously raised against his
(Mantik's) argument, I come back repeatedly to one point. No matter what
form or amount of overdeveloping/underdeveloping or non-linearity of
process you come up with, all the densities on any xray are on a one way
street. As you over expose, they all reduce together. If point A is
lighter than point B, then no matter what or which of your processes you
apply, A is NEVER going to get DARKER than B. Unless you can propose some
mechanism by which on further exposure the film / image actually become
MORE dense.

Imagine a horse race. (Why not?) Film it. You can stretch it, slowmo it,
speed it up, speed bits up & others down...whatever you like. But if at no
point do you actually pick out one horse & shift it's image around on the
film.....then the horses are always going to come in in the same order.
Some of those wierd densities on the back of the head would only be
explicable in your terms if some such 'reversal' or selectivity about
highlighting certain areas was applied. The 'contour map'
(radio-opacity-wise) is not deformable ,premortem into post-mortem,
without somebody (I really don't think someTHING ie machine..would be up
to the job) picking out certain areas & SELECTING them . I.E. certain
areas have been highlighted at the expense of others. I.E. they've been
messed with.

Unless the back of the head in the lateral is full of plaster of paris or
something. Which is probably not impossible. At some point the skull *was*
filled with the stuff.

Also Mantik's in depth work on the 6.5mm, (relative to itself & not to the
teeth), is pretty compelling. From memory, a 6mm section of whatever it's
made of comes off LESS radio-opaque than a 3mm section. Which suggests
it's made of anti matter or something.

And the Xray I had in mind, as a control, was of course the AP. Same tec,
same film, same process, same method, same reason (looking for bullets...)
but...no funny OD's. If the odd OD's are down to any of these things you
have suggested (and after thinking about it I don't see how they could be)
they why on earth no strange OD's for the bone on the AP? The damn thing
should be covered in them, if you're right.


>
>Until an actual explanation is put forth, the matter of the OD
>characteristics of the X-rays has to be left open.

Well, on reconsideration, Mantik has the only explanation going at the
moment, aside from the plaster of paris.

(Incidentally, what IS the OD of Gawlers Patent Morticians All-Purpose
Filler? )

Paul .

Joe Durnavich

unread,
Jan 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/23/00
to
Paul Seaton writes:

>
>Joe Durnavich wrote in message ...
>

>>This demonstrates my point quite well. Nobody is offering an
>>EXPLANATION, including me. Just because Mantik can't explain the
>>X-rays does not automatically imply forgery. Conclusions must be
>>drawn from actual evidence. Saying, "I can't explain so-and-so" is
>>not evidence of anything other than ones own lack of knowledge.
>
>But Joe, Mantik maintains he CAN explain the Xrays, and he makes a pretty
>good case of it.

He has made no case of it. He just makes it look like he has. Let's
see some forged films that can withstand the scrutiny of the Clark
Panel and HSCA radiologists and photographic panel. Then let's see
positive evidence that those techniques were used on the autopsy
X-rays.


>His casethat the luminosities at the back of the head are
>downright peculiar is granted, even by you. Now, the usual scientific
>procedure would then be to come up with an experiment which might be
>expected to settle the matter. Sadly, Burke Marshall has the evidence and
>keeps it pretty close to his chest.
>
>On thinking over some of the points you have previously raised against his
>(Mantik's) argument, I come back repeatedly to one point. No matter what
>form or amount of overdeveloping/underdeveloping or non-linearity of
>process you come up with, all the densities on any xray are on a one way
>street. As you over expose, they all reduce together. If point A is
>lighter than point B, then no matter what or which of your processes you
>apply, A is NEVER going to get DARKER than B. Unless you can propose some
>mechanism by which on further exposure the film / image actually become
>MORE dense.

The brownish stains on the X-rays are signs of exhausted developer,
fixer, or inadequate washing. These problems will cause parts of the
image to darken with time. Or they can make parts of the image
disappear--get brighter--if the moisture in the air is high enough.
The problem will be different in the brighter (less exposed) areas of
the film than the darker areas. So, the stains are evidence that the
densities are altered in a way that you say is impossible.


>Imagine a horse race. (Why not?) Film it. You can stretch it, slowmo it,
>speed it up, speed bits up & others down...whatever you like. But if at no
>point do you actually pick out one horse & shift it's image around on the
>film.....then the horses are always going to come in in the same order.
>Some of those wierd densities on the back of the head would only be
>explicable in your terms if some such 'reversal' or selectivity about
>highlighting certain areas was applied. The 'contour map'
>(radio-opacity-wise) is not deformable ,premortem into post-mortem,
>without somebody (I really don't think someTHING ie machine..would be up
>to the job) picking out certain areas & SELECTING them . I.E. certain
>areas have been highlighted at the expense of others. I.E. they've been
>messed with.

You have a faulty assumption here, that the pre-mortem X-ray published
in a book must be convertible to the enhanced autopsy X-ray also
published in a book. Think about all the processing steps done to
these images along the way. There is just not way to guarantee
density relations were maintained.

You assume that the process of publishing the pre-mortem X-ray
preserves the relations of the densities. It is possible the
pre-mortem X-ray was photographed on a light box which has a series of
fluorescent lights in it. It is not guaranteed that the light is
uniform across the whole image.

And, as I pointed out before, the autopsy X-ray was taken of the
actual body, not of another X-ray. Furthermore, the (tissue)
densities in the body WERE different at the time of the autopsy
compared to the films taken 3 years before.


>Unless the back of the head in the lateral is full of plaster of paris or
>something. Which is probably not impossible. At some point the skull *was*
>filled with the stuff.
>
>Also Mantik's in depth work on the 6.5mm, (relative to itself & not to the
>teeth), is pretty compelling. From memory, a 6mm section of whatever it's
>made of comes off LESS radio-opaque than a 3mm section. Which suggests
>it's made of anti matter or something.

Or it means Mantik is pulling a fast one on you. I'm amazed you guys
aren't critical of his assumptions here.


>And the Xray I had in mind, as a control, was of course the AP. Same tec,
>same film, same process, same method, same reason (looking for bullets...)
>but...no funny OD's. If the odd OD's are down to any of these things you
>have suggested (and after thinking about it I don't see how they could be)
>they why on earth no strange OD's for the bone on the AP? The damn thing
>should be covered in them, if you're right.

But the AP does have the same problems. Bright objects are quite
bright. But since the skull is much thicker front-to-back, there are
not as many dark areas. But notice that the right eye socket area was
still dark enough to convince Lattimer to draw it as all missing bone.
So there are signs of what I have been calling excessive contrast.


>>Until an actual explanation is put forth, the matter of the OD
>>characteristics of the X-rays has to be left open.
>
>Well, on reconsideration, Mantik has the only explanation going at the
>moment, aside from the plaster of paris.

What I want to know is why would the forgers create X-rays that have
unusual densities when, according to Mantik, copies can be made that
are difficult to tell from the original?

--
Joe Durnavich


0 new messages