Project: 3D Model of the Cranium Based on the Autopsy X-Rays

[Piotr Mancini]

The JFK Numbers journey began with some crude attempts by Joseph Riley,
PhD, to illustrate the 3rd. dimension in his web page. I contacted him and
began working on attempts to make real 3D images. Doctor Randolph
Robertson joined us soon afterwards.

I was astonished when I saw this program:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbOYLE7ATk

To my untrained eye, it looked like doctor Peter Cummings chose to base
his cranium based on the drawing ordered by Robert Blakey, ignoring the
original autopsy X-rays.

http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/HSCA-Drawing.png

After extracting several frames from the video, I hired a 3D expert
specialized in medical images, Michael Cahill, in Freelancer.com and and
assigned to him a very straightforward task: to produce two 3D models, one
based on the PBS Nova program:

http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Cummings-Perspective.jpg

and another based on the X-rays stored in the National Archives:

http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/HSCA-Perspective.jpg

Interestingly, Michael told me that he is originally from Wexford County,
Ireland, birthplace of the Kennedys. He was puzzled by all the versions,
variations, holes appearing and disappearing, moving all over the place.
He could not believe that something as important could be so vague. That's
when the idea of:

- Digitizing the X-rays to the highest quality possible. Could barely
believe when the Archives personnel gave me their preliminary approval.

- Extracting a 3D model

- Donating it to the National Archives

began to take shape.

The participation of all doctors involved in the topic is indispensable.
They can and must agree on a minimum ground. What can possibly be
controversial about a projection to 3D? Co-signed by all the doctors?

That common agreement is the very least that we, and specially the Notable
Doctors owe to history, to the American people.

What are the reasons to support this project? Is is best to ask the
opposite: what possible reason could have a sincere, well informed about
the tragedy individual to deny their approval to this significant
initiative?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

ps: Incidentally, those X-rays are aging as we speak, the only copies are
lower quality analog.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/19/2018 2:35 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
> The JFK Numbers journey began with some crude attempts by Joseph Riley,
> PhD, to illustrate the 3rd. dimension in his web page. I contacted him and
> began working on attempts to make real 3D images. Doctor Randolph
> Robertson joined us soon afterwards.
>
> I was astonished when I saw this program:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbOYLE7ATk
>
> To my untrained eye, it looked like doctor Peter Cummings chose to base
> his cranium based on the drawing ordered by Robert Blakey, ignoring the
> original autopsy X-rays.
>

No, silly. That is not even where Cummings thinks the wound was.
He'd gone back to down near the EOP, which the HSCA rejected. He is only
allowed to show publically allowed photos and drawings, usually by the HSCA.

> http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/HSCA-Drawing.png
>
> After extracting several frames from the video, I hired a 3D expert
> specialized in medical images, Michael Cahill, in Freelancer.com and and
> assigned to him a very straightforward task: to produce two 3D models, one
> based on the PBS Nova program:
>
> http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Cummings-Perspective.jpg
>

NG

> and another based on the X-rays stored in the National Archives:
>
> http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/HSCA-Perspective.jpg
>

NG

[Piotr Mancini]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:16:39 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/19/2018 2:35 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
> > The JFK Numbers journey began with some crude attempts by Joseph Riley,
> > PhD, to illustrate the 3rd. dimension in his web page. I contacted him and
> > began working on attempts to make real 3D images. Doctor Randolph
> > Robertson joined us soon afterwards.
> >
> > I was astonished when I saw this program:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbOYLE7ATk
> >
> > To my untrained eye, it looked like doctor Peter Cummings chose to base
> > his cranium based on the drawing ordered by Robert Blakey, ignoring the
> > original autopsy X-rays.
> >
>

> [Dr. Peter Cummings] is only allowed to show publicly

> allowed photos and drawings, usually by the HSCA.
>

It is a good thing that his study was based on a 3D cranium, then, because
he is not allowed to ...

Wait a minute, are you saying that Ramon F. Herrera, John Doe, etc. are
allowed to create/manipulate photos, etc. to their heart's content,
anybody on this planet can, except doctor Peter Cummings?

https://www.bumc.bu.edu/anatneuro/our-people/faculty/peter-cummings-m-sc-m-d/

If you watch the video you will see that his cranium is "only an
experiment, using publicly available copies of autopsy photos and X-rays"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbOYLE7ATk

Well, that was then, JFK Numbers is now.

There are three Notable Doctors of the LN persuasions that I still have to
recruit for this project. All I need is their John Hancock on:

(a) A petition to Sweet Caroline to digitize the X-rays
(b) A donation of the extracted 3D Model to the National Archives.

These are the only ones remaining:
- Dr. Peter Cummings, Boston University
- Dr. Michael Baden
- Dr. Vincent Di Maio, Forensic Pathologist, book author

Again: The must have served in the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and/or
have received authorization from the Kennedy family to handle the autopsy
material.

Since Baden is a buddy of Wecht and both have participated in JFK related
events, I will (respectfully, as usual) ask The Pope for his assistance on
this.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Piotr Mancini]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:16:39 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 8/19/2018 2:35 PM, JFK Numbers wrote:
> > The JFK Numbers journey began with some crude attempts by Joseph Riley,
> > PhD, to illustrate the 3rd. dimension in his web page. I contacted him and
> > began working on attempts to make real 3D images. Doctor Randolph
> > Robertson joined us soon afterwards.
> >
> > I was astonished when I saw this program:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbOYLE7ATk
> >
> > To my untrained eye, it looked like doctor Peter Cummings chose to base
> > his cranium based on the drawing ordered by Robert Blakey, ignoring the
> > original autopsy X-rays.
> >
>
> No, silly. That is not even where Cummings thinks the wound was.
> He'd gone back to down near the EOP, which the HSCA rejected. He is only

> allowed to show publicly allowed photos and drawings, usually by the HSCA.

Tony:

See the 2 accompanying images:

http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Right-Forehead.png
http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/8-Shaped-Hole.png

At the time I attempted to claim that what looks like a hole is indeed a
hole. None other than David Mantik corrected me:

"No, Ramon, it is an optical illusion, the bone density in that region is
lower"

However, doctor Roman Marin:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/roman-marin-422ab722/

a radiologist who works in Ukraine -a war zone, mind you- told me:

"You need to check with a forensic radiologist, but that indeed seems to
me like a hole"

Therefore, I informed the Notable Doctors congregated in the readership:

"If, after we send the high quality digitized films to the Berlin
specialists (world class, creators of tomography equipment for Siemens),
and it turns out to be a hole, let the record show that Yours Truly
discovered it. (Before that Notable audience, anyway. Obviously people
have made the same assertion in forums)."

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Mitch Todd]

On 8/20/2018 9:13 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
[...]

> was then, JFK Numbers is now.
>
> There are three Notable Doctors of the LN persuasions that I still have to
> recruit for this project. All I need is their John Hancock on:
>
> (a) A petition to Sweet Caroline to digitize the X-rays
> (b) A donation of the extracted 3D Model to the National Archives.
>
> These are the only ones remaining:
> - Dr. Peter Cummings, Boston University
> - Dr. Michael Baden
> - Dr. Vincent Di Maio, Forensic Pathologist, book author

Exactly how many have you asked, and who among
them have actually signed on?

[Piotr Mancini]

Finally!!! Somebody asking me sincere, tough questions.

The list of those who have confirmed is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77lbknXimaw [at the time I was pissed at
my compadre Rex, now we are bosom buddies again]

With some of the docs I am on phone contact, or private e-mail (Robertson,
Mantik), Aguilar used to hang out with me in private, since then has
declared radio silence. This is typical, when they see me too chummy with
the Dark Side :-) they get jealous. The analogy with "my children" is not
exaggerated. Another reason for not returning e-mails must be: "Ramon, I
am sick of your blah, blah, get that damn letter written!" (they declared
that I would have the honor to write the first version of the letter to
Paul Kirk).

Chesser is a different story, has no much experience with forums, etc.
uses e-mail but not a lot. But Mantik keeps him posted. He is the only one
I didn't meet at the banquet (left early for Dallas).

Dr. Wecht does not use computers (has staff readers) and was scared of my
irreverent messages (I e-told [not in person or e-mail] the AOTUS and
Martha Murphy in no uncertain terms to be more responsible in their jobs
and have more respect for their *employers* The People. Wecht fired me
very publicly, and told me to become a dues paying if I wanted to
represent CAPA as sci-tech advisor and I was invited to the Houston
event), since then he appointed an intermediary Bill Kelly my new e-boss
are designated point of contact. Bill told me that in the last conference
call they decided to implement Ramon's ideas and that I would have direct
access to The Pope, through Cardinal Kelly. :-) Wecht gets tons of
e-mails, calls, etc.

In a nutshell: They have arrived to the conclusion that the numeric angle
is the best (maybe only) resource we have left.

During Houston trial of Lee, after the Alec Baldwin Banquet Jimmy Di
called me, excited, curious (was with Len Osanic transmitting the event
live on Internet radio):

"Jim, from this moment on, the X-ray project enters a new phase, I have
confirmed either by phone and now in person that all the CT Notable
Doctors are on board"

A few weeks later CAPA declared that they would pay for the digitalization
(it was $10K, but I negotiated it to $5K cold had cash and $5K pro bono).
All we need is a date.

"The cameras must be rolling, Ramon!" -David Mantik

Interestingly at the Archives they also designated a point of contact,
Gene Morris, who asked me to deal only with him. Seems to be a proud
admirer of Ted Kennedy and knows the family lawyer, Paul Kirk.

Best reply ever: "Mr. Morris, I have all the Notable Doctors from my side
in agreement, trust me, it hasn't been easy, it has taken me years but I
would like to make an effort -hard as it is- to recruit Doctors from the
other side of the aisle"

[Morris:] "That is the way to do it".

I called him recently, sent him a copy of my preliminary letter to Paul
Kirk, asking for recommendations and he approved it.

Have I told you that all those e-mails belong to you?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/21/2018 10:26 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:16:39 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/19/2018 2:35 PM, JFK Numbers wrote:
>>> The JFK Numbers journey began with some crude attempts by Joseph Riley,
>>> PhD, to illustrate the 3rd. dimension in his web page. I contacted him and
>>> began working on attempts to make real 3D images. Doctor Randolph
>>> Robertson joined us soon afterwards.
>>>
>>> I was astonished when I saw this program:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbOYLE7ATk
>>>
>>> To my untrained eye, it looked like doctor Peter Cummings chose to base
>>> his cranium based on the drawing ordered by Robert Blakey, ignoring the
>>> original autopsy X-rays.
>>>
>>
>> No, silly. That is not even where Cummings thinks the wound was.
>> He'd gone back to down near the EOP, which the HSCA rejected. He is only
>> allowed to show publicly allowed photos and drawings, usually by the HSCA.
>
> Tony:
>
> See the 2 accompanying images:
>
> http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Right-Forehead.png
> http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/8-Shaped-Hole.png
>

Phony cartoons.

> At the time I attempted to claim that what looks like a hole is indeed a
> hole. None other than David Mantik corrected me:
>
> "No, Ramon, it is an optical illusion, the bone density in that region is
> lower"
>
> However, doctor Roman Marin:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/roman-marin-422ab722/
>
> a radiologist who works in Ukraine -a war zone, mind you- told me:
>
> "You need to check with a forensic radiologist, but that indeed seems to
> me like a hole"
>
> Therefore, I informed the Notable Doctors congregated in the readership:
>
> "If, after we send the high quality digitized films to the Berlin
> specialists (world class, creators of tomography equipment for Siemens),
> and it turns out to be a hole, let the record show that Yours Truly
> discovered it. (Before that Notable audience, anyway. Obviously people
> have made the same assertion in forums)."
>

FYI, Dr. Lawrence Angel, who is much more qualified, looked at ALL the
autospy photos and X-rays and could SEE the hole in the forehead ABOVE
the right eye.


http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/angelray.gif

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Angel-AP.jpg


> -Ramon
> JFK Numbers
>
>

[Mitch Todd]

On 8/22/2018 8:54 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 9:48:42 PM UTC-5, Mitch Todd wrote:
>> On 8/20/2018 9:13 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> was then, JFK Numbers is now.
>>>
>>> There are three Notable Doctors of the LN persuasions that I still have to
>>> recruit for this project. All I need is their John Hancock on:
>>>
>>> (a) A petition to Sweet Caroline to digitize the X-rays
>>> (b) A donation of the extracted 3D Model to the National Archives.
>>>
>>> These are the only ones remaining:
>>> - Dr. Peter Cummings, Boston University
>>> - Dr. Michael Baden
>>> - Dr. Vincent Di Maio, Forensic Pathologist, book author
>>
>> Exactly how many have you asked, and who among
>> them have actually signed on?
>
> Finally!!! Somebody asking me sincere, tough questions.
>
> The list of those who have confirmed is here:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77lbknXimaw [at the time I was pissed at
> my compadre Rex, now we are bosom buddies again]

So, apparently, the only guy who signed on was Dr Denzel
Washington, but he was tragically killed when someone fed
an overloaded commuter bus an after dinner mint. I guess
it was supposed to be wafer thin.

That's a lot of wordage to answer a fairly simple pair of questions.
Sifting through your post, what I get is:

1.) Aguilar is done with you
2.) Wecht is keeping you at arm's length, at best
3.) Chesser is an unknown
4.) Robertson and Mantik are in contact, but I don't really hear
anything that wounds like enthusiasm on their part.

A simple list would have been better.

[Mitch Todd]

You'll realize Mantik's point if you look up JFK's premortem x-rays.

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you claiming that JFK was born with w hole in his forhead or maybe
it was an old war wound?

[Piotr Mancini]

Ah! We have a Trump supporter! You people are trivially easy to spot. See
the explanation at the bottom.

Gary Aguilar called me at home, apologized for being away on vacation and
blamed his staff, who had misplaced my message.

David Matik was in Europe as well, I was surprised that being so
responsive had not replied, so I called his phone and the voice mail
informed that he is on vacation. I sent him a text: "Sir, if you happen to
go to Germany, don't forget that the research lab is in Berlin. Perhaps
you could stop by? I can sent you the contact of the main researchers. We
miss you already." He sent me a nice message:

"Greetings from Passau -- near the Austrian border. Just back from
Munchen. On to Salzberg!"

Michael Chesser is the 2nd. best known in his group and the only one who
has analyzed the pre-mortem X-rays.

All three, Mantik, Robertson and Aguilar used to meet in the latter's home
in San Francisco, have had their differences and are doing much better
(after some required all uppercase, extra large font e-mails, I could not
read them for days.). I joked in the group that I created to somebody
(doctor Roman Marin) with copy to all the Notable Doctors of the CT
persuasion:

"I have miraculously achieved some sort of armistice/detente among them.
Let me put it this way: I don't think they send each other Christmas
cards."

That's when I was informed that they used to be much closer and have
friendly debates. After weeks of silence, one of them sent an e-mail to
the group precisely between Christmas and New Years, so I told him
privately: "Sir, I happen to be an amateur shrink, you are clearly
reaching out! :-)"

Therefore, I'd like to think that I had something to do with it.

Here's a videoclip celebrating the events:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zruTU6F9xEg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blVSodndWmI
[In this one the red haired girl is JFK Numbers, while the priest is a
presumably Catholic doctor, based on his last name:]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCOUCIx7rYY

Doctor Wecht and his son Benjamin independently volunteered to pass to
Alec Baldwin the material from JFK Numbers and *only* from JFK Numbers.
There was some contention, and was informed: "No, Ramon, Ben is too busy.
Cyril said that he would do it himself".

[What I said to Benjamin and his response, with the Old Man a few feet
way, is where I draw the line. I have mentioned the exchange to others in
person, but it is not something to be shared in forums. Suffice to say
that his response kept me going for months.].

Interestingly, you seem to be against the preservation of the X-rays,
which is a historic responsibility of every American. The donation of the
3D model of the cranium cannot possibly be avoided by the MSM. Or perhaps
you agree with those projects but hate the intelligent Liberal who came up
with the genial idea?

Mitch, since your profile is exactly as those of your fellow Trump voters
(no Liberal can be that puny), my automated program suggests the same
answer that you folks receive when tried you attempt to belittle and
diminish my role while at MIT:

What I did there in Cambridge was:

- Much less relevant that I would have wanted (among other things,
connected the last building to the Internet, (Parsons Lab) would have
preferred to have been involved in the first, LCS, across the street).

- A lot more relevant than you wish.

Q.E.D.
-Ramon
Humble Servant of The People
JFK Numbers

========================
The better question is this:

What have YOU, Mr. xyz, done for America???

-Ramon F Herrera, Internet Pioneer and Co-Founder while at MIT

(*) Muchas Gracias, Al!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Gore_and_information_technology

ps: Al Gore was inducted to the Internet Hall of Fame, where Conservatives
need not apply.

pps: Mr. Gore was also appointed by his best friend, Steve Jobs, as Member
of the Apple Board of Directors, where Conservatives need not apply.

[Piotr Mancini]

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:25:01 PM UTC-5, Mitch Todd wrote:
> On 8/22/2018 8:54 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 9:48:42 PM UTC-5, Mitch Todd wrote:
> >> On 8/20/2018 9:13 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> was then, JFK Numbers is now.
> >>>
> >>> There are three Notable Doctors of the LN persuasions that I still have to
> >>> recruit for this project. All I need is their John Hancock on:
> >>>
> >>> (a) A petition to Sweet Caroline to digitize the X-rays
> >>> (b) A donation of the extracted 3D Model to the National Archives.
> >>>
> >>> These are the only ones remaining:
> >>> - Dr. Peter Cummings, Boston University
> >>> - Dr. Michael Baden
> >>> - Dr. Vincent Di Maio, Forensic Pathologist, book author
> >>
> >> Exactly how many have you asked, and who among
> >> them have actually signed on?
> >
> > Finally!!! Somebody asking me sincere, tough questions.
> >
> > The list of those who have confirmed is here:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77lbknXimaw [at the time I was pissed at
> > my compadre Rex, now we are bosom buddies again]
>
> So, apparently, the only guy who signed on was Dr Denzel
> Washington, but he was tragically killed when someone fed
> an overloaded commuter bus an after dinner mint. I guess
> it was supposed to be wafer thin.
>

Is that your wish, Mitch? To see this project derailed? Do you realize
that once the seed has been planted anybody could replace me? I have made
clear to the Notable Doctors:

"I am more than happy to serve as a facilitator, it is one of the greatest
privileges in my life, but if you decide that you can do all this by
yourselves, if you don't need mother Ramon, I will promptly disappear.
Have many other numerical aspects to work on".

Response, from Matik: "Ramon, you write the first rough copy which I will
distribute and edit".

I deferred that honor to Roberson and Riley.

Here's an interesting comment: since he has a Draconian e-mail provider,
AT&T, both at home and work, the messages to Chesser were being rejected.
He missed much of the action, I postponed crucial announcements and I had
to bend myself like a pretzel to be able to reach him (and my guardian
angel Marie), getting different e-mail senders (SendGrind is great). When
he was finally reachable, he wrote:

"In *your* project, do not forget to invite David Mantik and ..."

[Ramon:] "Doctor Chesser, I am just a facilitator, who has had experience
in similar endeavors. This is *your* project and I am the one who would
need to ask permission from you to go to The Archives on that date". Larry
Schnapf informed us that CAPA would pay for the expenses and that Ramon
should be there. I declined: "I don't want to take a minimum credit from
the real protagonists, my heroes, to steal your thunder. For starters, I
am not a physician. Where I really want to be is to the Dallas laser
scanning, since I am a network specialist"

I am planning to be there with an Ethernet cable while the announcer
(Baldwin offered, I would love instead to invite somebody like Martin
Sheen or Donald Sutherland) says:

"That cable is sending the output from the laser scanner to a public
Internet server, in real time the data is the possession of its rightful
owners, The People".

I have every indication that all the Notable Doctors are on board. Despite
their differences (which have all but disappeared after I wisely changed
the primary project from the controversial 3D cranium to the 3D model of
Dealey Plaza on which the agreement is total).

There is one person who respectfully asked me not to be included in the
e-mails, since the situation was getting rowdy (see The Fabulous Fighting
Garelli Brothers videoclips) and I decided to work with him one-on-one. I
call him "the doctor how is not a doctor" and respectful of his wishes I
will not discus his situation publicly.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Humble Servant blah, blah...

[Mitch Todd]

If you've read my comments in another thread, you'd know
I wasn't. What kind of person responds to a simple request
for a simple answer trying to tar me with a lie?

Again, you respond by with filmatic non-sequitur followed
by an effusive whirlwind that doesn't really answer the
questions I asked. And, It kinda looks to me like you
asked Mantik (at least) to write a letter for you, and he
responded by asking to do it yourself. That doesn't sound
like a ringing endorsement.

Let me ask again: exactly how many [physicians who've studied
the JFK autopsy materials] have you asked, and who among
them have actually signed on [to your initiative]?

A forthright, succinct answer is all we need.

[bigdog]

On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 11:21:15 AM UTC-4, Piotr Mancini wrote:
>
> Is that your wish, Mitch? To see this project derailed? Do you realize
> that once the seed has been planted anybody could replace me? I have made
> clear to the Notable Doctors:
>

99.99999% of the American people have no idea who you are or what you are
doing. Nor do they care.

[Mitch Todd]

At this point, I'm not sure if there really is a project.
Maybe someone who wants a project, who has a this great
idea about a project, but no real project. Or, at least
the project isn't working the way that someone wants it
to.

> I have made clear to the Notable Doctors:
> "I am more than happy to serve as a facilitator, it is one of the greatest
> privileges in my life, but if you decide that you can do all this by
> yourselves, if you don't need mother Ramon, I will promptly disappear.
> Have many other numerical aspects to work on".
>
> Response, from Matik: "Ramon, you write the first rough copy which I will
> distribute and edit".

Again, it's starting to sound to me like you wanted him to
write a letter, and he responded, in effect, with "no, *you*
need to write the letter"

> I deferred that honor to Roberson and Riley.

Which means that they wrote the letter?

> Here's an interesting comment: since he has a Draconian e-mail provider,
> AT&T, both at home and work, the messages to Chesser were being rejected.
> He missed much of the action, I postponed crucial announcements and I had
> to bend myself like a pretzel to be able to reach him (and my guardian
> angel Marie), getting different e-mail senders (SendGrind is great). When
> he was finally reachable, he wrote:
>
> "In *your* project, do not forget to invite David Mantik and ..."

And, here we are again. It looks to me like you're saying,
"next, we need to..." and they interrupt with the classic
Tonto punchline, "what you mean, 'we', Kimo Sabe?"

> [Ramon:] "Doctor Chesser, I am just a facilitator, who has had experience
> in similar endeavors. This is *your* project and I am the one who would
> need to ask permission from you to go to The Archives on that date". Larry
> Schnapf informed us that CAPA would pay for the expenses and that Ramon
> should be there. I declined: "I don't want to take a minimum credit from
> the real protagonists, my heroes, to steal your thunder. For starters, I
> am not a physician. Where I really want to be is to the Dallas laser
> scanning, since I am a network specialist"
>
> I am planning to be there with an Ethernet cable while the announcer
> (Baldwin offered, I would love instead to invite somebody like Martin
> Sheen or Donald Sutherland) says:
>
> "That cable is sending the output from the laser scanner to a public
> Internet server, in real time the data is the possession of its rightful
> owners, The People".
>
> I have every indication that all the Notable Doctors are on board. Despite
> their differences (which have all but disappeared after I wisely changed
> the primary project from the controversial 3D cranium to the 3D model of
> Dealey Plaza on which the agreement is total).

"I have every indication" sounds a lot like "I think they are"
and also "I have no real confirmation."

> There is one person who respectfully asked me not to be included in the
> e-mails, since the situation was getting rowdy (see The Fabulous Fighting
> Garelli Brothers videoclips) and I decided to work with him one-on-one. I
> call him "the doctor how is not a doctor" and respectful of his wishes I
> will not discus his situation publicly.

...plus the unknown guy.

[Mark]

Why didn't you mention that forehead entry wound when you presented your
paper "Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll" to
The Third Decade conference in 1993?

Mark

[Piotr Mancini]

Let's say the the world top scientists in their field, those at the ZIB
institute in Berlin, creators of the most advanced CT equipment for the
likes of GE, Toshiba, Siemens, those brilliant researchers who -I hope &
dream- will be in charge of the "Ich bin ein Berliner" Project, the brain
(intended) child of JFK Numbers.

We congregate the scientists and a bunch of guys of the LN persuasion:

- PhDs: "We have the X-rays from the Michael Jackson autopsy. Should we
create a 3D model?"

- LNs: "Yes, that is important for the advancement of science"

- "How about the X-rays from an unknown pedestrian?"

- LNs: "Absolutely"

- "This guy died of a shot while hunting, there are debates over the
origin/trajectory of the bullet. A 3D model with top accuracy will be
of tremendous help to verify that the authorities were indeed correct
in their assessment."

- LNs: "Go for it!"

[and so on, for hours. The students and mentors are equally excited]

- "Oh, after all these years, the guy from the US got the permission from
the victim's relatives. I have the 3 DICOM files in my PC. Shall we
proceed?"

-LNs [growing suspicious]: "What was the name of the deceased? If you
cannot violate confidentiality on what date did he die?"

[The obvious horrifying answer is issued]

- LNs [howling]: "No!! No way! What a waste of time!"

- David Emerling: "I have repeatedly sustained that the search for the
truth and investigation is NOT the role of universities and centers of
research such as this!"

- Perro Grande: "99.99999% of America does not want that to be done".

- David Von Pein: [After several years of chasing him all over forumland,
remains mute, and paralyzed, refusing to answer]

Doctors: "You seem uncomfortable. Can you provide a rationale for your
denial? Keep in mind that here we deal with LOGIC"


-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Anthony Marsh]

Look at the date. I did not have the autopsy photos then.
I bought them after writing my article. I could amend my article to
include them, but that would be cheating. I met Mark Crouch when he came
to Boston and saw all the photos.

[bigdog]

That's the great thing about fantasies. You can tailor them to your
heart's content. No one is telling you not to do what it is you plan. You
are free to pursue this quixotic quest of yours. Nobody is standing in
your way. LNs see no reason to follow you on it. We already know the
truth. The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald was the assassin. Nearly
55 years later, no credible evidence has been found that there were any
other shooters or that Oswald was acting on behalf of anyone other than
himself. You and the other conspiracy hobbyists are free to keep looking
if you like.

[Mark]

Okay, I think. . . One of these days on here I want to talk to you about
that paper. Seems like you make a lot of unproven assumptions starting in
paragraph. . . Well, I just tried to get on and give you a paragraph
number and now I can't. What have you done with your "Puzzle-Palace"
Tony? I can get on the site, but can't bring up that conference. Anyway,
I'm sorry I don't know who Mark Crouch is. What did he share with you
photo-wise that we plebeians are not privy to?

Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/30/2018 2:41 PM, Mark wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 9:43:57 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 8/27/2018 2:07 PM, Mark wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 5:06:19 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 8/23/2018 4:26 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>>>>> On 8/21/2018 9:26 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:16:39 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/19/2018 2:35 PM, JFK Numbers wrote:
>>>>>>>> The JFK Numbers journey began with some crude attempts by Joseph Riley,
>>>>>>>> PhD, to illustrate the 3rd. dimension in his web page. I contacted
>>>>>>>> him and
>>>>>>>> began working on attempts to make real 3D images. Doctor Randolph
>>>>>>>> Robertson joined us soon afterwards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was astonished when I saw this program:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> ?????? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbOYLE7ATk

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To my untrained eye, it looked like doctor Peter Cummings chose to base
>>>>>>>> his cranium based on the drawing ordered by Robert Blakey, ignoring the
>>>>>>>> original autopsy X-rays.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, silly. That is not even where Cummings thinks the wound was.
>>>>>>> He'd gone back to down near the EOP, which the HSCA rejected. He is only
>>>>>>> allowed to show publicly allowed photos and drawings, usually by the
>>>>>>> HSCA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See the 2 accompanying images:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> ?? http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Right-Forehead.png
>>>>>> ?? http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/8-Shaped-Hole.png

>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the time I attempted to claim that what looks like a hole is indeed a
>>>>>> hole. None other than David Mantik corrected me:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> ?? "No, Ramon, it is an optical illusion, the bone density in that

>>>>>> region is
>>>>>> lower"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, doctor Roman Marin:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> ???? https://www.linkedin.com/in/roman-marin-422ab722/

>>>>>>
>>>>>> a radiologist who works in Ukraine -a war zone, mind you- told me:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> ?? "You need to check with a forensic radiologist, but that indeed

>>>>>> seems to
>>>>>> me like a hole"
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll realize Mantik's point if you look up JFK's premortem x-rays.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you claiming that JFK was born with w hole in his forhead or maybe
>>>> it was an old war wound?
>>>
>>> Why didn't you mention that forehead entry wound when you presented your
>>> paper "Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll" to
>>> The Third Decade conference in 1993?
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>
>>
>> Look at the date. I did not have the autopsy photos then.
>> I bought them after writing my article. I could amend my article to
>> include them, but that would be cheating. I met Mark Crouch when he came
>> to Boston and saw all the photos.
>
> Okay, I think. . . One of these days on here I want to talk to you about

Any time. If you read my other papers you can see where I had to revise
them when I found something new.

> that paper. Seems like you make a lot of unproven assumptions starting in
> paragraph. . . Well, I just tried to get on and give you a paragraph
> number and now I can't. What have you done with your "Puzzle-Palace"
> Tony? I can get on the site, but can't bring up that conference. Anyway,

I didn't post everything from that conference. Mainly my own papers.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/symposia.htm

> I'm sorry I don't know who Mark Crouch is. What did he share with you
> photo-wise that we plebeians are not privy to?
>

Exactly. Mark Crouch is the guy to whom James Fox leaked some blacka and
whte autopsy photos. That is why we call it the Fox set. Although I do
point out the National Archives numbering. He showed us all the Fox set he
had.

> Mark
>

[Mark]

I will do that.

> > that paper. Seems like you make a lot of unproven assumptions starting in
> > paragraph. . . Well, I just tried to get on and give you a paragraph
> > number and now I can't. What have you done with your "Puzzle-Palace"
> > Tony? I can get on the site, but can't bring up that conference. Anyway,
>
> I didn't post everything from that conference. Mainly my own papers.
>

I didn't mean you had the conference proceedings on Puzzle-Palace. I was just referring to your paper, which I could not bring up. I'll try again. Mark

> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/symposia.htm
>
> > I'm sorry I don't know who Mark Crouch is. What did he share with you
> > photo-wise that we plebeians are not privy to?
> >
>
> Exactly. Mark Crouch is the guy to whom James Fox leaked some blacka and
> whte autopsy photos. That is why we call it the Fox set. Although I do
> point out the National Archives numbering. He showed us all the Fox set he
> had.

Okay. You and others have spoken about the Fox Set on here before.
I'm not that familiar with it. WHAT exactly is in the Fox Set that I have
been prevented from seeing?

Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

That is why I sometimes CUT and PASTE whole articles.
Just to annoy McAdams. Some people may not be using a browser and can't
just click on a link.

And some of us may unfortunately be using Windows 10 and stuck with
their childish browsers.

>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/symposia.htm
>>
>>> I'm sorry I don't know who Mark Crouch is. What did he share with you
>>> photo-wise that we plebeians are not privy to?
>>>
>>

>> Exactly. Mark Crouch is the guy to whom James Fox leaked some black and
>> white autopsy photos. That is why we call it the Fox set. Although I do

>> point out the National Archives numbering. He showed us all the Fox set he
>> had.
>
> Okay. You and others have spoken about the Fox Set on here before.
> I'm not that familiar with it. WHAT exactly is in the Fox Set that I have
> been prevented from seeing?
>

Well, I'm sure it was intentional just to thwart you. But you came into
this late and missed sharing with other researchers. I posted an index of
what most of us have, but not too many people bothered to get the light
damaged print. Fox sold 10 of the black and white prints. One showed the
light leak as a blue line. Similar black and white photos were taken from
slightly different angles.


http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/f-index.gif

Some people like to talk about Fox 8 and some just say F8 assuming that
you'll know the F stands for Fox.

> Mark
>
>
>

[Piotr Mancini]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 8:54:51 PM UTC-5, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 9:48:42 PM UTC-5, Mitch Todd wrote:
> > On 8/20/2018 9:13 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > was then, JFK Numbers is now.
> > >
> > > There are three Notable Doctors of the LN persuasions that I still have to
> > > recruit for this project. All I need is their John Hancock on:
> > >
> > > (a) A petition to Sweet Caroline to digitize the X-rays
> > > (b) A donation of the extracted 3D Model to the National Archives.
> > >
> > > These are the only ones remaining:
> > > - Dr. Peter Cummings, Boston University
> > > - Dr. Michael Baden
> > > - Dr. Vincent Di Maio, Forensic Pathologist, book author
> >
> > Exactly how many have you asked, and who among
> > them have actually signed on?
>
> Finally!!! Somebody asking me sincere, tough questions.
>

I hereby withdraw my designation of Mr. Todd as sincere.

Since he has decided to retire to the Imprisoned Island Forum, not showing
his face around these parts any longer, he qualifies as pusillanimous as
well.

Mitch clearly does not believe in his cause. If that is not bad enough, he
and his cohorts do not believe in themselves: They are unwilling/unable to
get together and demand the authoritative institutions to dedicate their
ample resources toward the definite resolution of the numerical part.

There is simply no rational reason to reject all the advances in science
and technology during these decades, specially when all the evidence and
the brainpower needed are readily available.

That case has divided and confounded this great nation -and the rest- for
much longer than necessary.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

There is no scientific solution until most people are in agreement.

[Piotr Mancini]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:27:31 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> You are free to pursue this quixotic quest of yours.
> Nobody is standing in your way. LNs see no reason to follow you on it.

Those films are decaying as we speak. Would you support the digitalization
of the autopsy and pre-mortem X-rays, strictly for preservation purposes?

It is a simple yes/no question.

It would be be great if NG participants, other than Big Dog answered this
question.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/12/2018 12:44 AM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:27:31 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> You are free to pursue this quixotic quest of yours.
>> Nobody is standing in your way. LNs see no reason to follow you on it.
>
> Those films are decaying as we speak. Would you support the digitalization
> of the autopsy and pre-mortem X-rays, strictly for preservation purposes?
>

WHAT do YOU mean by digitization?
I already digitized them on my scanner. How many DPI do you want?

> It is a simple yes/no question.

Wrong.

[Mitch Todd]

IIRC, they did back in the 1990's. I know there was a lot of talk about
it, and I know the few images that Floyd Riebe took absolutely were
scanned. There's a problem in that the scan data was stored on Iomega
drives.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/13/2018 4:31 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> On 10/11/2018 11:44 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:27:31 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

>>> You?? are free to pursue this quixotic quest of yours.

>>> Nobody is standing in your way. LNs see no reason to follow you on it.
>>
>> Those films are decaying as we speak. Would you support the
>> digitalization
>> of the autopsy and pre-mortem X-rays, strictly for preservation purposes?
>>
>> It is a simple yes/no question.
>>
>> It would be be great if NG participants, other than Big Dog answered this
>> question.
>
> IIRC, they did back in the 1990's. I know there was a lot of talk about
> it, and I know the few images that Floyd Riebe took absolutely were
> scanned. There's a problem in that the scan data was stored on Iomega
> drives.
>

OMG! Oh the Humanity! Are you serious? Who would ever do such a horrible
thing? Were they terorists? Does anyone even remember what an IOMEGA drive
is? Do you mean like this?


https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiru5fnqITeAhXJm-AKHcHfAj4QjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AIomega-100-Zip-Drive.jpg&psig=AOvVaw0r_mf6sTEptpO-5deyrcq-&ust=1539551026517078

You would have to know a real researcher who is very old and knows a lot
about computers. What size do you need, 100 or 250?

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/13/2018 3:31 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> On 10/11/2018 11:44 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:27:31 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

>>> You?? are free to pursue this quixotic quest of yours.

>>> Nobody is standing in your way. LNs see no reason to follow you on it.
>>
>> Those films are decaying as we speak. Would you support the
>> digitalization
>> of the autopsy and pre-mortem X-rays, strictly for preservation purposes?
>>
>> It is a simple yes/no question.
>>
>> It would be be great if NG participants, other than Big Dog answered this
>> question.
>
> IIRC, they did back in the 1990's. I know there was a lot of talk about
> it, and I know the few images that Floyd Riebe took absolutely were
> scanned. There's a problem in that the scan data was stored on Iomega
> drives.
>

Indeed. I have the e-mail from Martha Murphy, where not too long ago she
informs doctor Michael Chesser:

https://goo.gl/pME8eB

that all that data was lost due to the lack of up-to-date drivers for
the Iomega drive.

Isn't the government's efficiency something to reckon with?

Even if it were available, the advances in technology are such that the
digitalization must be repeated. Not to mention the fact that a
digitalization done by the "evil government" will never be accepted by all
parts. Hence the reason for my invitation to the Notable Doctors of the 3
persuasions to co-sponsor the project.

I found a perfect company, made a deal with them that includes $5K pro
bono, $5K cold hard cash, they pay for transportation and hotel plus
repeat customer discounts. The engineer in charge has 30 years of
experience and will use the top model Edge from the company "Vidar
controls 80% of the worldwide marketplace for medical film digitizers".

We (meaning You The Reader) have the public word that CAPA will pay for
the work in Boston (where I plan to meet T-Rex and Marsh), home of the
pre-mortem radiographs and in College Park, Maryland, where this trip will
be repeated:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhX1yiJ_8-0

Interestingly, the same person, Senator Paul Kirk, the Kennedy's lawyer
is in charge of issuing both permissions.

So was that a yes or a no?

Big Dog still with us?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

"The cameras must be rolling, Ramon!"

Dr. David Mantik
Houston, 11/17/2018
https://capa-us.org/save-date-capa-mock-trial-oswald-nov-16-17-houston/

[bigdog]

On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 12:44:46 AM UTC-4, Piotr Mancini wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:27:31 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > You are free to pursue this quixotic quest of yours.
> > Nobody is standing in your way. LNs see no reason to follow you on it.
>
> Those films are decaying as we speak. Would you support the digitalization
> of the autopsy and pre-mortem X-rays, strictly for preservation purposes?
>

I am not aware any films were taken of the autopsy. Only photos and
x-rays. I know film celluloid does break down over time. I am not aware
that either the prints, negatives, or x-rays do the same.

> It is a simple yes/no question.
>

If they are subject to decay when stored, then yes they should be
preserved through digitization or some other means. Otherwise it seems
rather pointless.

> It would be be great if NG participants, other than Big Dog answered this
> question.
>

Why would that be great? Nobody here is in position to authorize your
request.

[Mitch Todd]

On 10/14/2018 12:29 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 10/13/2018 3:31 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>> On 10/11/2018 11:44 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 10:27:31 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>>> You?? are free to pursue this quixotic quest of yours.
>>>> Nobody is standing in your way. LNs see no reason to follow you on it.
>>>
>>> Those films are decaying as we speak. Would you support the
>>> digitalization
>>> of the autopsy and pre-mortem X-rays, strictly for preservation
>>> purposes?
>>>
>>> It is a simple yes/no question.
>>>
>>> It would be be great if NG participants, other than Big Dog answered
>>> this
>>> question.
>>
>> IIRC, they did back in the 1990's. I know there was a lot of talk
>> about it, and I know the few images that Floyd Riebe took absolutely
>> were scanned. There's a problem in that the scan data was stored on
>> Iomega drives.
>>
>
> Indeed. I have the e-mail from Martha Murphy, where not too long ago she
> informs doctor Michael Chesser:
>
>   https://goo.gl/pME8eB
>
> that all that data was lost due to the lack of up-to-date drivers for
> the Iomega drive.

There is no letter from Ms Murphy at the link. Just copies of
the Aerospace Corp enhanced head x-rays created for the HSCA.
You need to stop this overpromise-and-underdeliver thing. It's
bad for the image, you know.

A bit more seriously, did Murphy say that the data had been
destroyed because of an accident, or that it was effectively
unrecoverable due to the Archives not having a PC obsolete
enough to have drivers for an Iomega drive?

> Isn't the government's efficiency something to reckon with?

It would help if you didn't try to top it with missing letters.

> Even if it were available, the advances in technology are such that the
> digitalization must be repeated. Not to mention the fact that a
> digitalization done by the "evil government" will never be accepted by
> all parts. Hence the reason for my invitation to the Notable Doctors of
> the 3 persuasions to co-sponsor the project.
>
> I found a perfect company, made a deal with them that includes $5K pro
> bono, $5K cold hard cash, they pay for transportation and hotel plus
> repeat customer discounts. The engineer in charge has 30 years of
> experience and will use the top model Edge from the company "Vidar
> controls 80% of the worldwide marketplace for medical film digitizers".
>
> We (meaning You The Reader) have the public word that CAPA will pay for
> the work in Boston (where I plan to meet T-Rex and Marsh), home of the
> pre-mortem radiographs and in College Park, Maryland, where this trip
> will be repeated:
>
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhX1yiJ_8-0
>
> Interestingly, the same person, Senator Paul Kirk, the Kennedy's lawyer
> is in charge of issuing both permissions.

Why is this so surprising? The Kennedy's have been legally
declared the owners of the autopsy materials, and they've
always maintained control over the pre-mortem medical
records. It makes sense that they would have the same
person watching over both (for lack of a better word)
portfolios.

BTW, it doesn't matter who digitizes (what is "digitalization"?).
The CT's, or at least a large subset of them, believe that the
photos and/or x-rays were altered early on, and it won't matter
who digitizes them. And that leaves out the ones who believe that
the body itself was altered before the autopsy. Even then, any CT
who dislikes the results is going to waste no time before deciding
that you and your agents are minions of the CIA or the DoD or the
Illuminati or whatever other branch of the Unnamable Them they
believe to run things from behind the curtain.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/18/2018 9:38 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> On 10/14/2018 12:29 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>> Interestingly, the same person, Senator Paul Kirk, the Kennedy's
>> lawyer is in charge of issuing both permissions.
>
> Why is this so surprising?

Surprising to whom?

I thought most readers have been made aware of the following, but I will
have to repeat it again and again. It is my duty.

In the last 3-4 years, since the idea occurred to me ...

??? I have been working with all doctors which are skeptical about the
LN theory. They are eager and ready to co-sign the petition to the
Kennedys and donate the 3D model to the National Archives.

??? I have located the digitizing company and the source of funds for
both trips.

??? The National Archives have designated a point of contact with me for
this matter, Gene Morris.

??? I located and contacted the most advanced group (that I have been
able to find, you are welcome, encouraged to propose others) in the
world in study of X-rays and generation of 3D models.

??? The JFK Library has been extremely helpful to my queries.

Therefore, I remain totally unsurprised. Most of the events have
developed as I predicted years ago. Can show specific posts.

-Ramon F Herrera
JFK Numbers

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/18/2018 9:38 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:

> BTW, it doesn't matter who digitizes (what is "digitalization"?).
> The CT's, or at least a large subset of them, believe that the
> photos and/or x-rays were altered early on, and it won't matter
> who digitizes them.

Have you heard about Drs. David Mantik and Michael Chesser?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfvOxE6XFbI

Aren't you aware that prior to the extraction of a 3D model the
legitimacy of the X-rays must be ascertained? GIGO principle?

Please stipulate at which point you will say: "Stop! No need to proceed."

??? After the permission from the Kennedy family is obtained (the
Archives already gave me their thumbs up), the X-rays are processed by the
most advanced film digitizer, the Vidar Edge.

??? The X-rays are preserved for eternity.

??? The resultant 3 DICOM files (2 from College Park, 1 from Boston) are
sent to Berlin.

??? Said scientists are very familiar with the existence (by me
suggested, by them confirmed) of a unique characteristic "fingerprint" of
the human osseus tissue in different areas of a cranium. It will be a
matter of days before they produce their verdict based on 2D images (*)

Assuming that the X-rays are deemed legitimate:

??? The 3D model will take much longer. It will be the matter of a
doctoral thesis and dissertation.

??? Every scientist that qualifies is invited to co-sponsor the donation
of the model to the National Archives.

The question above is not only for you. Everybody: please feel free to
provide your 2 cents or 2 million bucks. How far should we go?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

(*) At this point I will have to congratulate half my Notable Doctors
and commiserate with the other half.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/14/2018 12:34 PM, bigdog wrote:

> I am not aware any films were taken of the autopsy. Only photos and
> x-rays. I know film celluloid does break down over time. I am not aware
> that either the prints, negatives, or x-rays do the same.
>

Everything breaks over time, given enough time.

The X-rays are images engraved on films.

The devices to be used are known as "Film Digitizers"

https://www.xrayscan.com/scanners

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Mitch Todd]

On 10/19/2018 1:53 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 10/18/2018 9:38 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>> BTW, it doesn't matter who digitizes (what is "digitalization"?).
>> The CT's, or at least a large subset of them, believe that the
>> photos and/or x-rays were altered early on, and it won't matter
>> who digitizes them.
>
> Have you heard about Drs. David Mantik and Michael Chesser?
>
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfvOxE6XFbI
>
> Aren't you aware that prior to the extraction of a 3D model the
> legitimacy of the X-rays must be ascertained? GIGO principle?

Dr Mantik is the guy who's claimed that he's already proven
the x-rays to be forgeries. So do you square "the legitimacy
of the x-rays must be ascertained" with dropping his name?
The HSCA already sent the austopsy photos and x-rays to the
appropriate experts who determined that they are all genuine
images of JFK. Still, any number of self-styled researchers
have proven in the interim (wink, wink, nudge nudge) that
either the photos or x-rays or both are fakes. If you think
your approach will change that, don't kid yourself.

> Please stipulate at which point you will say: "Stop! No need to proceed."
>
>  ??? After the permission from the Kennedy family is obtained (the
> Archives already gave me their thumbs up), the X-rays are processed by
> the most advanced film digitizer, the Vidar Edge.

Actually, it's the Vidar Diagnostic Pro Edge, which is
admittedly a mouthful and worthy of contraction. Anyway,
you still need permission from the Kennedys, and the
last thing they seem to want is for the images to get
out of their control. Even when the HSCA published some
of the material, the released images were cropped as much as
practically possible.

>  ??? The X-rays are preserved for eternity.
>
>  ??? The resultant 3 DICOM files (2 from College Park, 1 from Boston)
> are sent to Berlin.

Actually, shouldn't there be four? One pre-mortem lateral,
two post-mortem lateral, and one "modified Waters"
projection?

>  ??? Said scientists are very familiar with the existence (by me
> suggested, by them confirmed) of a unique characteristic "fingerprint"
> of the human osseus tissue in different areas of a cranium. It will be a
> matter of days before they produce their verdict based on 2D images (*)

Wasn't that true of the HSCA, as well? And why would the
images need to be sent to Berlin, instead of having one
or more of them come to the archives and examine the
"fingerprints" using the original images? I figure it
would be easier to get a visit from Berlin past the
Hyannisport gatekeepers than exporting the image data.

> Assuming that the X-rays are deemed legitimate:
>
>  ??? The 3D model will take much longer. It will be the matter of a
> doctoral thesis and dissertation.

Exactly how many times have the Berlin folks generated
a 3D model of a skull directly from a set of AP and lateral
x-rays? And if they haven't already demonstrated the
ability to do so, how do you think they will be able
to do it in the near future?

>  ??? Every scientist that qualifies is invited to co-sponsor the
> donation of the model to the National Archives.

Who counts as "every scientist who qualifies?" Qualifies
for what, exactly? Qualifies how?

[Mitch Todd]

On 10/19/2018 1:50 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 10/18/2018 9:38 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>> On 10/14/2018 12:29 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>> Interestingly, the same person, Senator Paul Kirk, the Kennedy's
>>> lawyer is in charge of issuing both permissions.
>>
>> Why is this so surprising?
>
> Surprising to whom?

"Interesting," "Surprising," "Notable," all more or less
synonymous. What is so noteworthy about Kirk being given
oversight of the JFK medical material in Beantown as well
as the Archives?

> I thought most readers have been made aware of the following, but I will
> have to repeat it again and again. It is my duty.
>
> In the last 3-4 years, since the idea occurred to me ...
>
>  ??? I have been working with all doctors which are skeptical about the
> LN theory. They are eager and ready to co-sign the petition to the
> Kennedys and donate the 3D model to the National Archives.

Last you told me, none of them had signed the petition.

>  ??? I have located the digitizing company and the source of funds for
> both trips.

..yet, nothing has been digitized still.

>  ??? The National Archives have designated a point of contact with me
> for this matter, Gene Morris.

Which amounts to what, exactly?

>  ??? I located and contacted the most advanced group (that I have been
> able to find, you are welcome, encouraged to propose others) in the
> world in study of X-rays and generation of 3D models.

What you've already said about them implies that they
have yet to generate a 3D skull model from a set of
x-rays. That's not really gonna be helpful.

>  ??? The JFK Library has been extremely helpful to my queries.

They're librarians. It's a fundamental part of their
job to be helpful to those looking for info. However,
they aren't the people who will grant you access to
what you desire. Those who are have a history of tightly
and strictly controlling access to the materials.

> Therefore, I remain totally unsurprised. Most of the events have
> developed as I predicted years ago. Can show specific posts.

As far as I can tell, you're essentially in the
same position you were in the last time you
showed up here. I also remain totally unsurprised.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/19/2018 1:53 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 10/18/2018 9:38 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>> BTW, it doesn't matter who digitizes (what is "digitalization"?).

[from Spanish and other romance tongues - feel free to steal it]

>> The CT's, or at least a large subset of them, believe that the
>> photos and/or x-rays were altered early on, and it won't matter
>> who digitizes them.
>
> Have you heard about Drs. David Mantik and Michael Chesser?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfvOxE6XFbI
>
> Aren't you aware that prior to the extraction of a 3D model the
> legitimacy of the X-rays must be ascertained? GIGO principle?
>
> Please stipulate at which point you will say: "Stop! No need to proceed."

[Your readers anxiously wait for your response, Mitch]

>
> ??- After the permission from the Kennedy family is obtained (the

> Archives already gave me their thumbs up), the X-rays are processed by
> the most advanced film digitizer, the Vidar Edge.
>

> ??- The X-rays are preserved for eternity.
>
> ??- The resultant 3 DICOM files (2 from College Park, 1 from Boston)
> are sent to Berlin.
>
> ??- Said scientists are very familiar with the existence (by me

> suggested, by them confirmed) of a unique characteristic "fingerprint"
> of the human osseus tissue in different areas of a cranium. It will be a
> matter of days before they produce their verdict based on 2D images (*)
>
> Assuming that the X-rays are deemed legitimate:
>

> ??- The 3D model will take much longer. It will be the matter of a
> doctoral thesis and dissertation.
>
> ??- Every scientist that qualifies is invited to co-sponsor the

> donation of the model to the National Archives.
>
> The question above is not only for you. Everybody: please feel free to
> provide your 2 cents or 2 million bucks. How far should we go?
>
> -Ramon
> JFK Numbers
>

> (*) At this point I will have to congratulate half my Notable Doctors
> and commiserate with the other half.
>
>

Let's enumerate the categories of participants (actual and potential) in
this project which -if accomplished- belongs in the history books. There
are 4 groups:

(1) The Notable Doctors of the LN persuasion. By definition they believe
in the legitimacy of the X-rays and therefore (being honest physicians
subject to the highest standards of professional reputation and Ethics)
will be very enthusiastic supporters of the studies by top experts which
will confirm their verdict and subsequent donation of a 3D cranium model
to the Archives. Users e-located inside the cranium scrutinizing -from the
telescopic to the microscopic level- will be able to see that the fatal
shot could only have been originated at the sniper's nest.

- Dr. Peter Cummings

- Dr. Michael Baden
- Dr.

(2) Those of the CT persuasion who are convinced that the X-rays have
been manipulated in some way:

- Dr. David Mantik
- Dr. Michael Chesser
- Dr. Gary Aguilar

(3) The CT Honorables who have determined that the X-rays are
legitimate:

- Dr. Randolph Robertson
- Dr. Joseph Riley

(4) Those who have decided to leave the ultimate determination to
Science:

- Dr. Cyril Wecht
- Ramon F. Herrera
(not a doctor, does not play one in Usenet, did *not* attend MIT)

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Anthony Marsh]

Excuse me? You think that there is no one that still has an Iomega
drive? That's how I shared files with Ken Rahn. I was also the only
person who had old 8MM films with the ghost images like the Zapruder film.

>

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/19/2018 7:41 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> "Interesting," "Surprising," "Notable," all more or less
> synonymous. What is so noteworthy about Kirk being given
> oversight of the JFK medical material in Beantown as well
> as the Archives?
>

You folks never learn. One of the most common characteristics of
Conservatives is that their neurons acquire a cement-like consistency.

By now all the readers are probably becoming aware of this:

"Hey, after all that hoopla, Ramon is a one-trick pony!"

That is 100% correct.

Let us take the debate of whether my above contention is correct or
your, to the Authoritative Instances, shall we?

When your fellow Conservs had an issue about the word illegal, crimminal
or something, I took it the the proper forum: the NGs:

- alt.usage.english

I won 40 to 0.

So, who will post the question: you or me?

-Ramon

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/19/2018 7:41 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:

> "Interesting," "Surprising," "Notable," all more or less
> synonymous. What is so noteworthy about Kirk being given
> oversight of the JFK medical material in Beantown as well
> as the Archives?
>

You folks never learn. One of the most common, defining characteristics

of Conservatives is that their neurons acquire a cement-like

consistency. As usual, can provide URLs, studies, etc. [Universities are
by definition on my side]

By now most readers are probably becoming aware of this:

"Hey, after all that hoopla, Ramon is a one-trick pony!"

That is 100% correct.

Let us take the debate of whether my above contention is correct or your

interesting (not surprising, much less notable) manipulation, to the
Authoritative Instances, shall we?

When your fellow Conservs had an issue about the use of the expression
"illegal immigrant" (they claim that all immigrants are legal, it was 30
against 1 in the immigration forums those days), I took it the the
proper forum: the NGs, where the professionals of the English language
hang out:

- alt.usage.english
- alt.english.usage

I won about 40 to 0.

So, who will post the question: you or me?

"Interestingly enough, Senator Paul Kirk, being the head of the JFK
Library Board of Directors, would be the person to authorize the
digitalization of the pre-mortem X-rays"

-Ramon

[Mitch:] "more or less synonymous."

ps: Award winner, authoritative David Horsey had your statement in mind
when he drew this:

http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/politics/Horsey-to-Mitch-Todd.jpg

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/19/2018 7:41 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:

> On 10/19/2018 1:53 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>> On 10/18/2018 9:38 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>>> BTW, it doesn't matter who digitizes (what is "digitalization"?).
>>> The CT's, or at least a large subset of them, believe that the
>>> photos and/or x-rays were altered early on, and it won't matter
>>> who digitizes them.
>>
>> Have you heard about Drs. David Mantik and Michael Chesser?
>>

>> ???? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfvOxE6XFbI

>>
>> Aren't you aware that prior to the extraction of a 3D model the
>> legitimacy of the X-rays must be ascertained? GIGO principle?
>
> Dr Mantik is the guy who's claimed that he's already proven
> the x-rays to be forgeries. So do you square "the legitimacy
> of the x-rays must be ascertained" with dropping his name?

See previous post below:

==========================================================
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 8:31:33 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> Can you accept it?

I hereby formally promise that anybody affiliated with the JFK Number
(Initiative? Organization? Group? Project? JFK Facts Maverick Spinoff?
Not-for-Profit entity incorporate in the State of Texas last year?) will
accept the determination of the best schools and centers of research on
the numeric aspect.

Signed (with blood)

-Ramon F Herrera
JFK Numbers

==========================================================

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/19/2018 7:41 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:

> Still, any number of self-styled researchers
> have proven in the interim (wink, wink, nudge nudge) that
> either the photos or x-rays or both are fakes.

Indeed, and we could add:

"Still, any number of self-styled researchers have proven in the interim

(wink, wink, nudge nudge) that either the photos or X-rays or both are
legitimate."

What to do? How to solve this conundrum? Ah! I know! Science! The Power of
Numbers to the rescue!

Are we at all familiar with the term (courtesy of Yours Truly) and
strict requirement to be accepted as a Notable Doctor?

[Gene Morris, National Archives:]

http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Definition-of-Notable-Doctor.png

Notice the part in bold. Interestingly, I have located pretty much every
single person who qualifies for the first part (pathology), BUT how
about the 2nd (sci+tech, my field)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpPYSO-TTsw

That is the reason why I am considering the following proposal to the
elite, exclusive club. These folks, should be invited to join the
petition:


http://www.zib.de/projects/3d-reconstruction-anatomical-structures-2d-x-ray-images

As usual, I am more than willing to hear opinions from you, The People to
whom I have sworn be a servant. In addition to the Galenos, should the
representatives from geekland, enginerds be allowed to co-sign?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

ps: The issue of "self-styled" is hereby CLOSED. Let's move on.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/19/2018 7:41 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:

>> - Said scientists are very familiar with the existence (by me

>> suggested, by them confirmed) of a unique characteristic "fingerprint"
>> of the human osseus tissue in different areas of a cranium. It will be
>> a matter of days before they produce their verdict based on 2D images
>

> Wasn't that true of the HSCA, as well?

It was not. The technology was not available. They used their human,
fallible eyes. The most advanced numerical study is done by Mantik and
Chesser. I publicly, with copies to all Notables and my CAPA e-boss mocked
the pair.

"The approach by our esteemed Drs. Mantik and Chesser is to measure 11
spots -with their little densitometer- in the X-rays and make a division
with a handheld calculator. Meanwhile, the digital scanners provide at
least 300x300 = 90,000 points per square inch and the results are
processed by the PhDs who create CT equipment for Siemens with their
computers running for hours"

I even included a couple of comparative illustration [really cool, will
dig it] to further ridicule their outdated, insufficient strategy.

[Was almost fired by CAPA, again, but that's for another thread]

I think that's when Mantik began liking me, a colleague maverick who
Dares to Speak Truth to Power.

> And why would the
> images need to be sent to Berlin, instead of having one
> or more of them come to the archives and examine the
> "fingerprints" using the original images? I figure it
> would be easier to get a visit from Berlin past the
> Hyannisport gatekeepers than exporting the image data.
>

It takes days to have the computers analyze the images. Step No. 1, since
computers cannot really see a film, it must be digitized. If I managed to
steal the originals and bring them myself across the Berlin Wall, their
first step would be to digitize them, use the DICOM files and
Hans-Christian will tell me:

"Ramon, enfant terrible, you are incorrigible! We appreciate your
dedication and passion but did you really have to do all this? Come all
the way here? Violate federal laws in at least two countries? I clearly
told you to e-mail to us the DICOM files. Now get the hell out of here and
take you contraband films with you. When the Bundespolizei shows up we
will deny having seen you."

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

ps: Exporting restrictions, you said? I export these an unknown number
of times per hour all over the planet:

https://goo.gl/fnq51e

In fact, I have an empty, very sad folder, waiting for 3 long years, alone:

http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/You-Feel-Me-Up.png
https://goo.gl/utJmMD
[Go inside "Reconstruction by Researchers and Their Algorithms",
check out the work by "scientist" Dr. Peter Cummings]

Disclaimer: If you touch those, you are the ones going to jail, not me!!

[bigdog]

IOW, there is no reason for any of us to care what you think about the
medical evidence.

PS. Is Wecht OK with being lumped into the same category with you.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/19/2018 7:41 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:

> Who counts as "every scientist who qualifies?" Qualifies
> for what, exactly? Qualifies how?

These are the qualifications required:

(1) Having served in the HSCA FPP

and/or

(2) Having received permission by the Kennedy family to handle the
autopsy material.

http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Definition-of-Notable-Doctor.png

I am considering inviting world class experts in processing of 2D X-rays
and generation of 3D tomography.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/19/2018 7:41 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:

> What you've already said about them implies that they
> have yet to generate a 3D skull model from a set of
> x-rays. That's not really gonna be helpful.
>

Those people are the most qualified in this planet for the task at hand.

Which task, you asked? Read the subject line.

They have generated millions of 3D models, based on 2D "slices" of the
human body. Every time a CT machine in the world creates a tomography,
those scientists, PhDs and postdocs are behind it.

The Kennedy case is unique, because there are only 3 images. The
underlying technology will be generated, advanced for us with future
improvements as science advances.

What I am doing is to give the problem to the world scientific community.

By definition JFK Numbers only refers to the most authoritative entities.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

If there are hidden files, it is not science.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/19/2018 7:41 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:

> Why would the

> images need to be sent to Berlin, instead of having one
> or more of them come to the archives and examine the
> "fingerprints" using the original images? I figure it
> would be easier to get a visit from Berlin past the
> Hyannisport gatekeepers than exporting the image data.
>

For several reasons:

(1) It would take weeks to prepare, fine tune the software, compare
the pre-mortem and post-mortem X-rays in *two* cities.

(2) The computer machinery needed does not fit in the sacred room. Not
sure about the space available in the JFK Library.

(3) Such equipment would need at least two weeks to arrive from Berlin
and being assembled. Who is going to pay for insurance?

(4) The young geniuses that study and work at ZIB would ask for my
head when they find out that I absconded with the precious computer
gadgetry (happened to me at MIT, it was a high tech ISDN phone donated
by AT&T) (*)

Last, but not least:

(5) The archives only gave me permission for two hours.

Any other suggestions are welcome.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

ps: This sign was hung in one of the computers labs under my charge:

"There was a guy by the name of Ramon
Who absconded with our telephone
Now, associates, friends, family and lovers
Will have to leave us alone!"

The author was Lynn something, right hand woman of my boss, Dennis
McLaughin. Have that piece of paper somewhere plus a cartoon they drew
of me, call me sentimental.

https://goo.gl/5gHMZf

[BT George]

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:25:01 PM UTC-5, Mitch Todd wrote:

> On 8/22/2018 8:54 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 9:48:42 PM UTC-5, Mitch Todd wrote:
> >> On 8/20/2018 9:13 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> was then, JFK Numbers is now.
> >>>
> >>> There are three Notable Doctors of the LN persuasions that I still have to
> >>> recruit for this project. All I need is their John Hancock on:
> >>>
> >>> (a) A petition to Sweet Caroline to digitize the X-rays
> >>> (b) A donation of the extracted 3D Model to the National Archives.
> >>>
> >>> These are the only ones remaining:
> >>> - Dr. Peter Cummings, Boston University

> >>> - Dr. Michael Baden

> >>> - Dr. Vincent Di Maio, Forensic Pathologist, book author
> >>
> >> Exactly how many have you asked, and who among
> >> them have actually signed on?
> >
> > Finally!!! Somebody asking me sincere, tough questions.
> >

> > The list of those who have confirmed is here:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77lbknXimaw [at the time I was pissed at
> > my compadre Rex, now we are bosom buddies again]
>
> So, apparently, the only guy who signed on was Dr Denzel
> Washington, but he was tragically killed when someone fed
> an overloaded commuter bus an after dinner mint. I guess
> it was supposed to be wafer thin.
>
>
> > With some of the docs I am on phone contact, or private e-mail (Robertson,
> > Mantik), Aguilar used to hang out with me in private, since then has
> > declared radio silence. This is typical, when they see me too chummy with
> > the Dark Side :-) they get jealous. The analogy with "my children" is not
> > exaggerated. Another reason for not returning e-mails must be: "Ramon, I
> > am sick of your blah, blah, get that damn letter written!" (they declared
> > that I would have the honor to write the first version of the letter to
> > Paul Kirk).
> >
> > Chesser is a different story, has no much experience with forums, etc.
> > uses e-mail but not a lot. But Mantik keeps him posted. He is the only one
> > I didn't meet at the banquet (left early for Dallas).
> >
> > Dr. Wecht does not use computers (has staff readers) and was scared of my
> > irreverent messages (I e-told [not in person or e-mail] the AOTUS and
> > Martha Murphy in no uncertain terms to be more responsible in their jobs
> > and have more respect for their *employers* The People. Wecht fired me
> > very publicly, and told me to become a dues paying if I wanted to
> > represent CAPA as sci-tech advisor and I was invited to the Houston
> > event), since then he appointed an intermediary Bill Kelly my new e-boss
> > are designated point of contact. Bill told me that in the last conference
> > call they decided to implement Ramon's ideas and that I would have direct
> > access to The Pope, through Cardinal Kelly. :-) Wecht gets tons of
> > e-mails, calls, etc.
> >
> > In a nutshell: They have arrived to the conclusion that the numeric angle
> > is the best (maybe only) resource we have left.
> >
> > During Houston trial of Lee, after the Alec Baldwin Banquet Jimmy Di
> > called me, excited, curious (was with Len Osanic transmitting the event
> > live on Internet radio):
> >
> > "Jim, from this moment on, the X-ray project enters a new phase, I have
> > confirmed either by phone and now in person that all the CT Notable
> > Doctors are on board"
> >
> > A few weeks later CAPA declared that they would pay for the digitalization
> > (it was $10K, but I negotiated it to $5K cold had cash and $5K pro bono).
> > All we need is a date.
> >
> > "The cameras must be rolling, Ramon!" -David Mantik
> >
> > Interestingly at the Archives they also designated a point of contact,
> > Gene Morris, who asked me to deal only with him. Seems to be a proud
> > admirer of Ted Kennedy and knows the family lawyer, Paul Kirk.
> >
> > Best reply ever: "Mr. Morris, I have all the Notable Doctors from my side
> > in agreement, trust me, it hasn't been easy, it has taken me years but I
> > would like to make an effort -hard as it is- to recruit Doctors from the
> > other side of the aisle"
> >
> > [Morris:] "That is the way to do it".
> >
> > I called him recently, sent him a copy of my preliminary letter to Paul
> > Kirk, asking for recommendations and he approved it.
> >
> > Have I told you that all those e-mails belong to you?
>
> That's a lot of wordage to answer a fairly simple pair of questions.
> Sifting through your post, what I get is:
>
> 1.) Aguilar is done with you
> 2.) Wecht is keeping you at arm's length, at best
> 3.) Chesser is an unknown
> 4.) Robertson and Mantik are in contact, but I don't really hear
> anything that wounds like enthusiasm on their part.
>
> A simple list would have been better.

But tragically, also constitutionally impossible for Ramon. (Else he
hopes we get lost in the words and can't figure out that he has pretty
much gotten little or no enthusiastic response.)

If he sent those on his list messages this long-winded and indirect, I
can't wonder why they haven't exactly beaten down his door with
enthusiasm.

[Mitch Todd]

On 10/21/2018 11:45 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 10/19/2018 7:41 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>> What you've already said about them implies that they
>> have yet to generate a 3D skull model from a set of
>> x-rays. That's not really gonna be helpful.
>>
>
> Those people are the most qualified in this planet for the task at hand.
>
> Which task, you asked? Read the subject line.
>
> They have generated millions of 3D models, based on 2D "slices" of the
> human body. Every time a CT machine in the world creates a tomography,
> those scientists, PhDs and postdocs are behind it.

After going through their website, I don't see where
they ever claim, infer, or imply to be "behind"
tomography. In fact, the first CT devices were in
service a decade before ZIB was even created. They
have projects that create 3d models from already-
existing tomographic data, but that makes them users
rather than creators of tomography technology.

More importantly, that's not even the point. What you think
they're going to do isn't tomogaphy in the first place, so
why are you even bringing this up?

> The Kennedy case is unique, because there are only 3 images. The
> underlying technology will be generated, advanced for us with future
> improvements as science advances.

In other words, not only do you not know what they are
going to do, *they* don't know what they are going to
do. That's not exactly convincing.

> What I am doing is to give the problem to the world scientific community.

The scientific community does not need you to act as
an intermediary. Qualified experts in fields appropriate
to the examination of the autopsy materials are already
allowed access to them, contingent on the explicit
permission of the Kennedy family via its agents. Any
number of interested and qualified parties have already
done so in the past 40 years.

[Mitch Todd]

I don't think there's such a thing as "3D tomography." There
are 3D representations of consolidated tomographic data, but
that's done after the tomography.

[Ramon F Herrera]

>> (2) Those of the CT persuasion who are convinced that the X-rays have
>> been manipulated in some way:
>>
>> - Dr. David Mantik
>> - Dr. Michael Chesser
>> - Dr. Gary Aguilar
>>

>> (3) The CT Notables who have determined that the X-rays are

>> legitimate:
>>
>> - Dr. Randolph Robertson
>> - Dr. Joseph Riley
>>
>> (4) Those who have decided to leave the ultimate determination to
>> Science:
>>
>> - Dr. Cyril Wecht
>> - Ramon F. Herrera
>> (not a doctor, does not play one in Usenet, did *not* attend MIT)
>>
>
> IOW, there is no reason for any of us to care what you think about the
> medical evidence.
>

[Plonk]

If you build it, they will come. Multiple times, with more positions
than the Kama Sutra:

https://sketchfab.com/models/f2d31eb0ddac4d21944df7dcc4af6d28

:-P

> PS. Is Wecht OK with being lumped into the same category with you?

Ah! Finally your head is producing something other than fleas.

Dr. Wecht or, as I call him -never to his face- "Cyril I", happens to be
the most crucial individual in the JFK case, today and in years to come:

https://capa-us.org/ [*]

A new thread should be dedicated to him. I promise to disclose revelations
-in exclusivity for the McAdamites- heretofore unknown by the masses
yearning to be free.

Your thread or mine? Do I have to do everything around here?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[*] Two items in the homepage of the CAPA website were the brainchild of
JFK Numbers. Care to guess which?

[Ramon F Herrera]

You assertions are based on the wrong assumption that my posts are
targeted for the readers of this NG, for Your Eyes Only:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kNksLL0sv4

It is my experience that there are other eyes reading them. Even better:
reacting and doing things.

My superiors, for once, are kept abreast of your reactions, which happen
to be as expected and better.

Additionally, there are other lurking eyes. One would hope, anyway.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Ramon F Herrera]

In Google, the term gets 33 million hits.

https://goo.gl/xN4tP6

Among them:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/3d-computed-tomography

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/3d-tomography-and-high-resolution-tem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CT_scan

Oh, wait, hold on ... My automated debater is pulling my sleeve:

"Hey! Aren't we supposed to bring the issue to -as you call them-
'Authoritative Entities'"?

More seriously: You have not asked the good question, which was asked in
this forum to me a while back and I never had the chance to reply. Too
busy preparing for the Houston Trial of Lee. (*)

[Macadamian nut] "Ramon, I hate to tell you this, but such-and-such
big shot [who I attempted to contact through his JFK web page, never
replied] already tried to extract a 3D model and failed. There is simply
not enough information in 2 or even 3 X-rays, you need a lot of them"

Okay, class: who is going to ask that question? Anyone, anyone?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

(*) All for naught, that pesky Mantik shot me down -as you can clearly
see here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsxIOdZoUM8

and my proposal. I retaliated with that videoclip.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 10/27/2018 9:36 AM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>
> The scientific community does not need you to act as
> an intermediary.

But they need you to make that determination on their behalf?

Why do you conservs keep on trying to be the spokespersons of people you
don't even know?

Why are so {perturbed, offended, green with envy, scared shitless, etc}
of my relationship with anybody? Including but not limited to The People?

Read this first, so you have a better understanding of how science works
and then come back:

"The man who may have solved the JFK murder case, and doesn't even
know it"

"Meet Demetri Terzopoulos and his groundbreaking research:"

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/4b42RCsHo_Q/7dpTOu84CwAJ

[tic, toc, tic, toc... Waiting while you read the thread and follow my
links]

Good, you are done reading.

No, I have not attempted to contact Terzopoulos on my own, for several
reasons, this being one of them:

http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Terzopoulos-Sponsors.png

I called Wecht Jr. who offered to have his famous dad contact Oliver
Stone, a respected peer of Terzopoulos. That is pending. That will be
one of the upcoming JFK Numbers to be worked on and hopefully solved.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[bigdog]

I don't know if there are stats telling us how many hits this newsgroup
gets. A rough estimate of the number of regular contributors is about two
dozen. A few more occasional posters. How many lurkers. Who knows? I doubt
they outnumber the posters. I have no illusions that any of us are
reaching enough people with our posts to move the needle of public
opinion. I post here because it is a subject that has a strange
fascination for me as it seems to for most of us. I've learned quite a bit
about it from what others have posted but also from the research I've had
to do when making my own posts. Anyone who thinks any of our efforts here
is having much of an impact is only fooling themselves.

[Anthony Marsh]

There are if you know where to look. Google Groups keeps stats on all
the newsgroups they carry.

> gets. A rough estimate of the number of regular contributors is about two
> dozen. A few more occasional posters. How many lurkers. Who knows? I doubt
> they outnumber the posters. I have no illusions that any of us are

The ratio is usually about 10 to 1.

> reaching enough people with our posts to move the needle of public

We already did. Ever hear of the HSCA or the ARRB or COPA or ARRC or JFK
Records Act? They did not magically appear.

> opinion. I post here because it is a subject that has a strange
> fascination for me as it seems to for most of us. I've learned quite a bit
> about it from what others have posted but also from the research I've had
> to do when making my own posts. Anyone who thinks any of our efforts here
> is having much of an impact is only fooling themselves.
>

Nah, you just don't know how to use GAB.

[bigdog]

I'm quite sure all of those preceded the formation of this newsgroup.

>
> > opinion. I post here because it is a subject that has a strange
> > fascination for me as it seems to for most of us. I've learned quite a bit
> > about it from what others have posted but also from the research I've had
> > to do when making my own posts. Anyone who thinks any of our efforts here
> > is having much of an impact is only fooling themselves.
> >
>
> Nah, you just don't know how to use GAB.

Nor do I care.

[Mitch Todd]

On 10/29/2018 8:08 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 10/27/2018 9:36 AM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>>
>> The scientific community does not need you to act as
>> an intermediary.
>
> But they need you to make that determination on their behalf?

They don't need me, and I neither claimed nor implied that
they did. The rest of my response, *the part you deleted*,
makes my point clear:

"Qualified experts in fields appropriate
to the examination of the autopsy materials are already
allowed access to them, contingent on the explicit
permission of the Kennedy family via its agents. Any
number of interested and qualified parties have already
done so in the past 40 years."

They don't need anyone to mediate for them or determine
for them or act on their behalf in any other way. If
they have the interest and the expertise, *they simply
go do it themselves, and have done so for decades*. If
ZIB (for instance) really wanted to delve into issues
surrounding the assassination, they could easily do it
themselves. That's why your claim, "what I am doing is

to give the problem to the world scientific community"

is so ridiculous.

Speaking of ZIB, you had claimed:

"they have generated millions of 3D models, based on 2D

'slices' of the human body. Every time a CT machine in
the world creates a tomography, those scientists, PhDs
and postdocs are behind it."

To which I replied,

"After going through their website, I don't see
where they ever claim, infer, or imply to be 'behind'
tomography. In fact, the first CT devices were in
service a decade before ZIB was even created. They
have projects that create 3d models from already-
existing tomographic data, but that makes them users
rather than creators of tomography technology."

And, I added:

"More importantly, that's not even the point. What you
think they're going to do isn't tomogaphy in the first
place, so why are you even bringing this up?"

No comment from you?

> Why do you conservs keep on trying to be the spokespersons of people you
> don't even know?

....says the guy who keeps telling us he's the "humble
servant" representing "The People."

> Why are so {perturbed, offended, green with envy, scared shitless, etc}
> of my relationship with anybody? Including but not limited to The People?

[see above]

As far as I can tell from your own electronic gum flapping,
your "relationships" with other parties generally aren't.
So, there's no perturbation, offense, jealousy, or fear on
my part. Those are merely figments of your own imagination.

> Read this first, so you have a better understanding of how science works
> and then come back:
>
>  "The man who may have solved the JFK murder case, and doesn't even
> know it"
>
>  "Meet Demetri Terzopoulos and his groundbreaking research:"
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/4b42RCsHo_Q/7dpTOu84CwAJ
>
>
> [tic, toc, tic, toc... Waiting while you read the thread and follow my
> links]
>
> Good, you are done reading.
>

> No, I have not attempted to contact Terzopoulos on my own, for several W

> reasons, this being one of them:
>
>  http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Terzopoulos-Sponsors.png
>
> I called Wecht Jr. who offered to have his famous dad contact Oliver
> Stone, a respected peer of Terzopoulos. That is pending. That will be
> one of the upcoming JFK Numbers to be worked on and hopefully solved.

Once again, you waste God knows how many electrons telling
us that some guy is supposed to be able to do something, but
you haven't talked to him about it....someone else is going
to tell someone else to ask someone else to contact this guy.
Which amounts to, basically, nothing.

[Mitch Todd]

On 10/29/2018 10:16 AM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 10/27/2018 3:32 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>> On 10/21/2018 11:44 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>> On 10/19/2018 7:41 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>>>> Who counts as "every scientist who qualifies?" Qualifies
>>>> for what, exactly? Qualifies how?
>>>
>>> These are the qualifications required:
>>>
>>>   (1) Having served in the HSCA FPP
>>>
>>> and/or
>>>
>>>   (2) Having received permission by the Kennedy family to handle the
>>> autopsy material.
>>>
>>> http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Definition-of-Notable-Doctor.png
>>>
>>> I am considering inviting world class experts in processing of 2D
>>> X-rays and generation of 3D tomography.
>>
>> I don't think there's such a thing as "3D tomography." There
>> are 3D representations of consolidated tomographic data, but
>> that's done after the tomography.
>
> In Google, the term gets 33 million hits.
>
>   https://goo.gl/xN4tP6
>
> Among them:
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/3d-computed-tomography
>
>
> https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/3d-tomography-and-high-resolution-tem
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CT_scan

In Google, searching for "3D" and "Tomography" (as you
did) gets 40,000,000 hits. "3D tomography" (which is what
you wrote, and specifically what I objected to) generates
about 58,000 hits. From that, it should be obvious that
"3D tomography" is not exactly the preferred term, to
say the least.

The word "tomography" itself is derived from Greek:

"tomo," meaning slice or section, and

"graph," meaning to write or to draw.

"Tomography", then, excludes "3D," literally by definition.

If you'd read the Wikipedia article you linked to, you'd
have noticed that it avoids using "3D tomography," for
reasons you should now know. A strict and proper term for
what you were thinking would be on the order of "3D synthesis
from tomographic data," though I think you'll agree that's
a mouthful. Maybe someone out there tries to shorten it out
and uses the term "3d tomography;" millions also use the
unword "irregardless" and incorrectly use "I could care less."
You can find plenty of those on Google as well.

BTW, the NIH article refers to the use of transmission
electron microscopes, and a particular technique called
"electron cryotomography." To get the phrase you wanted,
you've strayed far, far away from where you needed to be.

> Oh, wait, hold on ... My automated debater is pulling my sleeve:
>
>   "Hey! Aren't we supposed to bring the issue to -as you call them-
> 'Authoritative Entities'"?
>
> More seriously: You have not asked the good question, which was asked in
> this forum to me a while back and I never had the chance to reply. Too
> busy preparing for the Houston Trial of Lee. (*)
>
>  [Macadamian nut] "Ramon, I hate to tell you this, but such-and-such
> big shot [who I attempted to contact through his JFK web page, never
> replied] already tried to extract a 3D model and failed. There is simply
> not enough information in 2 or even 3 X-rays, you need a lot of them"
>
> Okay, class: who is going to ask that question? Anyone, anyone?

The guy's name is Paul Seaton, and neither I nor anyone else that
I know of ever said or implied that he was a "big shot" in any way.
I did find that he was a thoughtful guy who put a lot of time and
thought into understanding the x-rays. He tried at least one
software-based attempt to generate a 3d image from them, but it
turned out to be a disappointing mess. Normal x-rays simply aren't
amenable to reconstruction like stereoscopic imaging of photographs.
Otherwise, we'd see far fewer CT devices out there, since the
demand for sophisticated radiography would be more quickly and
cheaply had by taking a couple of x-rays. CT machines require
what is effectively a very large number of exposures, although the
data is presented in a more complex, not-particularly intuitive
format called a sinogram. The data from the sinogram are run through
a transform to generate a recognizable image of the slice, and
multiple slices can be used to generate a 3d model.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 11/4/2018 10:18 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> On 10/29/2018 8:08 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>> On 10/27/2018 9:36 AM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>>>
>>> The scientific community does not need you to act as
>>> an intermediary.
>>
>> But they need you to make that determination on their behalf?
>
> They don't need me, and I neither claimed nor implied that
> they did. The rest of my response, *the part you deleted*,
> makes my point clear:
>
> "Qualified experts in fields appropriate
> to the examination of the autopsy materials are already
> allowed access to them, contingent on the explicit
> permission of the Kennedy family via its agents. Any
> number of interested and qualified parties have already
> done so in the past 40 years."
>
> They don't need anyone to mediate for them or determine
> for them or act on their behalf in any other way. If
> they have the interest and the expertise, *they simply
> go do it themselves, and have done so for decades*. If
> ZIB (for instance) really wanted to delve into issues
> surrounding the assassination, they could easily do it
> themselves. That's why your claim, "what I am doing is
> to give the problem to the world scientific community"
> is so ridiculous.
>

Okay, I will be more clear. I am speaking on behalf of all the qualified
doctors (Notable Doctors) and the scientists that I have located in
Berlin and elsewhere.

"What freaking business is it of yours to decide whether we need
anybody to mediate among ourselves, the media, forums or the Kennedys?"

- Signed: All The Notable Doctors of CT persuasion and the ZIB
Scientists

That's right, I just signed on their behalf. Read the rational here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Syw-dtNc9ig/-GJT7HWIAgAJ

Oh, allow me to add something else:

"What freakin' business is it of yours to decide whether we need to
be informed, encouraged or *sponsored* by Mr. Herrera or not?"

- Signed: The Worldwide Scientific Community

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 11/4/2018 10:18 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:

> They don't need anyone to mediate for them or determine
> for them or act on their behalf in any other way. If
> they have the interest and the expertise, *they simply
> go do it themselves, and have done so for decades*. If
> ZIB (for instance) really wanted to delve into issues
> surrounding the assassination, they could easily do it
> themselves.

A simple example will clarify matters. I found a very promising way to
determine definitely whether the violent back snap was produced by an
outside force or by the victim's own muscles. The problem is equivalent
to determining whether a train was pushed or pulled. There is a
scientist, Demetri Terzopoulos, who *may* have solved the Kennedy
assassination mathematically AND DOESN'T EVEN KNOW IT.

https://goo.gl/6woICd [video with a soccer ball instead of bullet]

That approach (at the very least to ask the authors about their
assessment and applicability) would be highly desirable, correct? All
sides should be interested.

So, how exactly do you propose I proceed?

(a) I stay all day with my arms crossed, doing nothing about it,
perhaps attempting telepathic control, praying that the genius scientist
one day decide: "Hey, my Comprehensive Biomechanical Modeling and
Simulation of the Upper Body is perfect and so cool. After conquering
Hollywood, I should try new challenges. What should I do next? Oh, I
know! Let me try it simulating the Kennedy back snap to find the train
of motion!"

(b) Beg you -the auto designated decider, the guardian of the
interaction between a mortal and a scientist- to give me permission to
take some action?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

ps: The situation is very similar to the Berlin scientists, they were
excited about the idea. As usual, have the e-mails but not the phone
conversations. BTW: The Siemens CT equipment does not make itself. PhDs
and postdocs are not end-users, they are creators. If you find anybody
you consider qualified, please bring them in.

pps: Three authors: Sung-Hee Lee, Eftychios Sifakis and Demetri
Terzopoulos.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/5/2018 12:27 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> On 10/29/2018 10:16 AM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>> On 10/27/2018 3:32 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2018 11:44 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>>> On 10/19/2018 7:41 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
>>>>> Who counts as "every scientist who qualifies?" Qualifies
>>>>> for what, exactly? Qualifies how?
>>>>
>>>> These are the qualifications required:
>>>>

>>>> ????(1) Having served in the HSCA FPP
>>>>
>>>> and/or
>>>>
>>>> ????(2) Having received permission by the Kennedy family to handle the

>>>> autopsy material.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Definition-of-Notable-Doctor.png
>>>>
>>>> I am considering inviting world class experts in processing of 2D
>>>> X-rays and generation of 3D tomography.
>>>
>>> I don't think there's such a thing as "3D tomography." There
>>> are 3D representations of consolidated tomographic data, but
>>> that's done after the tomography.
>>
>> In Google, the term gets 33 million hits.
>>

>> ???? https://goo.gl/xN4tP6

>>
>> Among them:
>>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/3d-computed-tomography
>>
>>
>> https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/3d-tomography-and-high-resolution-tem
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CT_scan
>
> In Google, searching for "3D" and "Tomography" (as you
> did) gets 40,000,000 hits. "3D tomography" (which is what
> you wrote, and specifically what I objected to) generates
> about 58,000 hits. From that, it should be obvious that
> "3D tomography" is not exactly the preferred term, to
> say the least.
>
> The word "tomography" itself is derived from Greek:
>

> ???? "tomo," meaning slice or section, and
>
> ???? "graph," meaning to write or to draw.

>
> "Tomography", then, excludes "3D," literally by definition.
>
> If you'd read the Wikipedia article you linked to, you'd
> have noticed that it avoids using "3D tomography," for

> reasons you should now know.?? A strict and proper term for

> what you were thinking would be on the order of "3D synthesis
> from tomographic data," though I think you'll agree that's
> a mouthful. Maybe someone out there tries to shorten it out
> and uses the term "3d tomography;" millions also use the
> unword "irregardless" and incorrectly use "I could care less."
> You can find plenty of those on Google as well.
>
> BTW, the NIH article refers to the use of transmission
> electron microscopes, and a particular technique called
> "electron cryotomography." To get the phrase you wanted,
> you've strayed far, far away from where you needed to be.
>
>
>> Oh, wait, hold on ... My automated debater is pulling my sleeve:
>>

>> ???? "Hey! Aren't we supposed to bring the issue to -as you call them-

>> 'Authoritative Entities'"?
>>
>> More seriously: You have not asked the good question, which was asked
>> in this forum to me a while back and I never had the chance to reply.
>> Too busy preparing for the Houston Trial of Lee. (*)
>>

>> ????[Macadamian nut] "Ramon, I hate to tell you this, but such-and-such

>> big shot [who I attempted to contact through his JFK web page, never
>> replied] already tried to extract a 3D model and failed. There is
>> simply not enough information in 2 or even 3 X-rays, you need a lot of
>> them"
>>
>> Okay, class: who is going to ask that question? Anyone, anyone?
>
> The guy's name is Paul Seaton, and neither I nor anyone else that
> I know of ever said or implied that he was a "big shot" in any way.
> I did find that he was a thoughtful guy who put a lot of time and
> thought into understanding the x-rays. He tried at least one
> software-based attempt to generate a 3d image from them, but it
> turned out to be a disappointing mess. Normal x-rays simply aren't
> amenable to reconstruction like stereoscopic imaging of photographs.

I appreaciated his efforts even when I couldn't agree with him 100%. My
caveat is what are they trying to reconstruct. The head was in different
conditions at different times. The skull was fractured and plates loose or
missing when they took th X-rays. So it does not match the condition at
the time of the shooting and when they reflected the scalp at autopsy and
took the photos we can see that a lot of skull is missing.

[Mitch Todd]

...which might be significant had any of them actually
said this and signed this. I suspect that their silence
is significant, and your own loud prolixity allegedly
on their behalf even more so.

> That's right, I just signed on their behalf. Read the rational here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Syw-dtNc9ig/-GJT7HWIAgAJ

Yep, read that the first time. It didn't help your case then.
A repeat won't help your case now. Nor will signing "on their
behalf" convince anyone that you're not trying to pull our
collective leg.

> Oh, allow me to add something else:
>
>   "What freakin' business is it of yours to decide whether we need to
> be informed, encouraged or *sponsored* by Mr. Herrera or not?"
>
>   - Signed: The Worldwide Scientific Community

I don't need to decide anything. History has already decided
that those interested who have demonstrated expertise in the
appropriate fields are granted access to the autopsy materials.
They've never needed intermediaries to do so. If ZiB or CAPA
(many of whose members have been in that special room at the
archives) haven't already been granted access, then it stands
to reason that they simply aren't as interested in your
project as you'd have us believe.

[Mitch Todd]

You should proceed by first understanding the problem. A soccer
ball isn't going to penetrate the skull and blow a goodly portion
of the flesh and bone therein all over the place. Nor will the
soccer ball disintegrate into fragments during the impact. The
mechanics of this mayhem is complicated, and it doesn't look like
Terzopoulos' model is designed to address something like that.

> ps: The situation is very similar to the Berlin scientists, they were
> excited about the idea. As usual, have the e-mails but not the phone
> conversations. BTW: The Siemens CT equipment does not make itself. PhDs
> and postdocs are not end-users, they are creators. If you find anybody
> you consider qualified, please bring them in.

Now it's just Siemens? It used to be Siemens, GE, and Toshiba.
No matter which, I still don't see anything at ZiB claiming
that ZiB personnel are involved in the design CT scanners. Care
to elaborate on your claim?

[Anthony Marsh]

YES. History has already decidedd that it was a conspiracy and overruled
the WC and the lame autopsy.