JFK's Head Snap and the Implausible Jet-Effect and Neurospasm Theories

[Joe Elliott]

Another Joe Elliott “most likely” argument.

More people should remind themselves that all their current beliefs are subject to review and may be changed in the future. That we can’t know for certain what happened but only estimate what probably happened. And these estimates are always subject to change.

But what CTs say that Jackie is reaching for a “piece of bone” specifically, rather than say a piece of brain?

Whether it is a ‘piece of bone’ or a ‘piece of brain’, it is invisible in all the films and photographs, including the Zapruder film, and so is probably, most certainly, nonexistent.

[John Iacoletti]

Whether it is a ‘piece of bone’ or a ‘piece of brain’, it is invisible in all the films and photographs, including the Zapruder film, and so is probably, most certainly, nonexistent.

Why would you expect everything that exists to be visible in the Zapruder film?

[Tim Nickerson]

By the way, years ago we learned from ARRB-released files that Dr. John Ebersole, he radiologist at the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that a sizable occipital bone fragment arrived late that night from Dallas. Understandably, Dr. Ebersole said the photos of the back of the head did not show the large defect that he recalled seeing. When shown one of the back-of-the-head photographs, Dr. Ebersole told HSCA investigators that his recollection was that the large defect was in the occipital region, and that he "certainly" could not state that the image seen in the photo was "the way it looked."

"Again we are relying on a 15 year old recollection."

Ebersole testified that the X-Rays in the National Archives are the ones that he supervised the taking of just prior to the start of the autopsy on Kennedy. He positively identified them , which is why he knew that his recollection on the location of the large head wound was off. Jerrol Custer believed that the X-Rays were genuine. He was shown three X-Rays of the skull during his ARRB testimony and he confirmed that he had taken them. Those X-Rays were (1),(2),and (3) in the list below.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image01.htm

This helps to explain why Saundra Kay Spencer, who processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy, told the ARRB that she did not process any of the autopsy photos now in evidence, i.e., that the autopsy photos that she processed were different from the autopsy pictures now in evidence. She also told the ARRB she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives.

Saundra Spencer obviously never processed the autopsy photos. The description that she gave of the body would have been how it appeared post-autopsy.

[Tim Nickerson]

The 6.5 mm “fragment” on the anterior-posterior (AP) autopsy skull x-ray is not hard to figure out.

  It's the 7mm x 2mm fragment that was removed by Humes. It was acknowledged as such by Humes in his WC testimony and in his ARRB deposition. Both Jerrol Custer and Edward Reed also placed the large fragment as being located just superior to the right supra-orbital ridge.

[Joe Elliott]

Why would you expect everything that exists to be visible in the Zapruder film?

Anything of significant size, yes. The Zapruder film only shows material being blasted forward and/or up. Nothing, that is big enough to be seen, going backwards. This is an indication of a shot from the back, not from the front.

Certainly, small particles did go backwards. But small particles are the ones most effected by the wind. And the limousine was driving into a head wind of 10-15 mph. With its own 8 mph speed, the wind relative to the limousine was 18-23 mph. So, we don’t even know if any small particles were initially propelled backwards. It is possible that all the small particles, just like the larger ones that are visible, were also initially propelled forward, but got caught in the wind and blew backwards. That would explain why all the large particles, like the Harper fragment, ended up going forward while only the smaller particles ended up going backwards.

[John Iacoletti]

We don't know the Harper fragment went forward.  We just know approximately where Harper said he found it, which by the way was south of the limo.  How does a glancing shot through the right side of the head propel a fragment toward the left?

[John Tonkovich]

We don't know the Harper fragment went forward.  We just know approximately where Harper said he found it, which by the way was south of the limo.  How does a glancing shot through the right side of the head propel a fragment toward the left?

The second bullet to the President's head, at the EOP, might be responsible for that.
Might want to check the hole in the collar of Kennedy's coat.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dr. Mantik explains how the 6.5 mm object was added to the AP x-ray:

The 6.5 mm object was not described in the autopsy report nor was it seen by anyone on the original autopsy X-rays. Among the many dozens of individuals at the autopsy, no one saw it, even though the X-rays were on public display during the autopsy. Nor has anyone at the autopsy ever recalled a single conversation about it. This peculiar object simply materialized in the public record, for the first time four years later with the 1968 Clark Panel report.

This artifact was added to the JFK AP skull X-ray (in the darkroom) via a double exposure of a 6.5 mm aperture (e.g., via a 6.5 mm hole in a piece of cardboard). In this process, the first step was to imprint the image from the original X-ray onto a duplicate film (via a light box in the dark room). The second step was another exposure that imprinted the 6.5 mm image onto the duplicate film (i.e., superimposing it over the image of the original X-ray). This duplicate film was then developed to yield the image seen in Figure 1. This process inevitably produces a phantom effect, whereby objects (e.g., bullet fragments in this case) on the original film are seen separately from the superimposed 6.5 mm image. On JFK’s AP skull X-ray, the original metal fragment (that lay at the back of the skull) can be seen separately through the 6.5 mm image (Figure 7). ("The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest 'Metallic Fragment,'" p. 14, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_X-rays.pdf)

Dr. Michael Chesser, a specialist in neurology and neurophysiology, studied the originals of the autopsy skull x-rays at the National Archives and confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings that the x-rays have been altered and that the 6.5 mm object is not an image of a bullet but an image that was added to the AP x-ray. He used optical density measurements and confirmed that the white patch seen on the lateral x-rays, which covers the area corresponding to the right-rear part of the head, is impossibly dense and physiologically impossible. He also discovered that the HSCA FPP published a misleading copy of the lateral skull x-ray to give the false impression that it is blurry and largely useless:

In the HSCA report you’ll find this very blurred image of the original right lateral skull x-ray (actually the inventory lists two left lateral skull x-rays). Looking at this image in the report would make you think that this x-ray is in horrible condition, and that the anterior half of the skull was so dim that no useful information could be obtained. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The actual original x-rays are in excellent condition, showing only minor aging, and this blurred copy doesn’t represent the original film well. This blurred image is very misleading – the purported reason for the need to enhance the x-rays was the poor image quality – that simply isn’t true.

Now I want to go back to the right lateral view, and to focus on the white patch, which Dr. Mantik has written so much about. I agree completely with him, that this points toward tampering.

Notice on the left this same area on the 1960 [JFK] skull x-ray, and how it is much less white, or dense, compared to the base of the skull, the petrous portion of the temporal bone.

Dr. Mantik took many more optical density readings that I did, but I wanted to show that my readings agree with his – that the white patch appears much more dense than is possible. On the left lateral x-ray, the OD reading was much more dense than the petrous bone – and again, this is not possible. An optical density of .24 is equivalent to a much higher density of the skull in this region, compared with an optical density of .32, and this is not physiologic, even in the face of traumatic alteration of the skull.

Most physicians, myself included, are not aware of the usefulness of optical densitometry for analyzing x-ray film, and I think it was Dr. Mantik’s background as a physicist which caused him to recognize the potential for applying this technology to these films.

Dr. Mantik has written extensively about the technique of double exposure and how this could have been accomplished with these films. I mention other possibilities because we know that the skull was reconstructed, and that the morticians used a rubber patch combined with plaster of Paris to fill in skull defects after the autopsy. I can’t exclude this, however I think that Dr. Mantik is probably right that double exposure is how the alteration was accomplished.

Next, I’d like to talk about the 6.5 mm bright object. The official version is that this is a slice of the midpoint of a Mannlicher Carcano bullet, that broke off and is embedded between the skull and the galea at the HSCA entry wound location.

If you take into account the angle taken for the AP x-ray, then it has to lie somewhere along the red line on the left. The only metallic appearing object along this path is the fragment noted at the back of the skull. I agree with Dr. Mantik that this fragment lies within the circumference of the 6.5 mm object, and that the 6.5 mm object was added to the image.

Dr. G.M. McDonnel, who made the computer enhanced images, described this fragment as being located between the outer table of the skull and the galea, the thickest layer of the scalp. He postulated that this broke off when the bullet hit the skull, and this fragment was thrown sideways and away from the skull, embedding itself in this location.

This is how the object appeared to me on the original film. There are two metallic fragments visible within the circumference of this object, and I agree with Dr. Mantik that the largest of these appears to correspond with the object embedded in the galea. I agree with Dr. Mantik’s description of the two fragments visible within the circumference of this object. I saw this only on the original AP x-ray – the HSCA copy shows a uniformly bright object.

I agree with Dr. Mantik that this is artifactual, and it was most likely added by double exposure. He has described this in detail in his publications. ("A Review of the JFK Cranial X-Rays and Photographs," http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/)