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

[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/)

[Joe Elliott]

I think you are a little unfair to characterize Mr. Griffith as a Trump defender. At best, he is only a part time Trump defender. He is more of a Defender of the Southern Cause, i.e., the Confederacy.

He has a whole website on that at:

http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/

. . .

Another attempt to poison the well with a completely off-topic smear.

Elliott does that a lot.

I point out CTers ‘eccentric’ views in that less than 10 per cent of my posts. I would hardly call that a lot. And it’s not a smear if the criticism is accurate. Is it a ‘smear’ to say that Joseph McCarthy was a demagogue, more interested in making headlines than finding the truth, or even finding real Communists and didn’t care how many innocent lives he ruined? Is that a smear? No, its accurate.

Until recently, Mr. Griffith was the ‘go to’ expert at this forum when a CTer wished to argue against the Ballistic Neuromuscular Spasm Hypothesis. His other believes are pertinent. If John McAdams were to argue that the South didn’t secede in order to maintain Slavery, but was really over High Tariffs (which in 1860 were actually at their lowest level since 1816), you don’t think CTers would fine this pertinent? CTers would be ‘poisoning the well’ with thousands of gallons. We would be hearing about John McAdams Pro-Confederacy beliefs all the time, if this was true. And it goes without saying, that if all this was true, John McAdams would not be a prominent spokesman for the LN side.

For whatever reasons, CTers, more prominent ones like James Fetzer and Jim Marrs, and less prominent ones like Michael Griffith, seem to often hold, how shall I say it, eccentric views on subjects outside the JFK Assassination. Much more so than LNers do. If the situation was reversed, CTers would be pointing this out all the time.

[Joe Elliott]

We don't know the Harper fragment went forward.

We know the Harper fragment went forward. We can see it flying forward in frames 313 and 314. Unless, as I said, there were two fragments. One visible and one invisible. The invisible one was found, the ‘Harper fragment’. The visible fragment was never found. Highly unlikely. Most likely, the white object we see flying up and forward is the Harper fragment. So, it went forward. That is why it was found forward of the z313 position.

We just know approximately where Harper said he found it, which by the way was south of the limo.

And because the limousine was heading southwest, ‘South of the limo’ is forward and to the left.

How does a glancing shot through the right side of the head propel a fragment toward the left?

First of all, must a fragment be sent flying directly in line with the bullet? Looking at frame 313:



We can see debris heading in many directions. The Harper fragment heading up at a 45-degree angle must be off line by at least 45 degrees, unless one believes the shot came from under the limousine.


And this is not exactly a glancing shot. It hit near the center of the back of the head and exited the right side of the head close to the face.


Now, as one can also see from Frame 312:



JFK’s head is turned significantly to the left. We can tell because from Don Roberdeau’s map, the limousine was on a compass course of about 208 degrees. The sun was shining from about 189 degrees. And yet, part of JFK’s right face is lite up by the sun. This would not be the case, unless JFK’s head was turned significantly to the left by more than 19 degrees. Giving a straight-line angle, from the right side of his head to points forward and to the left of the limousine. Not to mention the possibility that the fragment could have come more from the top of the skull than the side, which would not require any kind of head turn.

And no ballistic expert has found it impossible for a fragment from the head to be sent flying up and forward and to the left of the limousine. But, because non-Ballistic experts have determined this to be impossible, we should conclude that it is impossible?

How about the 'frisbee effect'?

Elliott will work it out.

Yes, I think I worked it out without using an ‘frisbee effect’.

He's so into physics!

Is that a criticism or a complement? Anyone trying to figure out the head shot should be into Physics. If one is going to claim the head is moving according to basic Physics, he had better understand Classical Physics. The vast majority who make this claim do not actually understand Classical Physics and such concepts as the Conservation of Momentum.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Quote from: Joe Elliott on July 10, 2020, 03:41:36 AM
I think you are a little unfair to characterize Mr. Griffith as a Trump defender. At best, he is only a part time Trump defender.

What on earth does this have to do with the JFK assassination? I would never use the argument "Well, he's an Obama defender and/or a Biden defender" to try to make a point in a JFK discussion, because such a comment would be irrelevant. People who make such comments are only showing their own blind, rabid partisan bias.

If you bother to read the comments I have made about Trump in this forum, you will see that my position on him is mixed. I defend most of his policies, but I do not like the way he often conducts himself and I do not think much of him as a person. He was my fourth pick among the GOP candidates in the 2016 GOP primary.

Quote from: Joe Elliott on July 10, 2020, 03:41:36 AM
He is more of a Defender of the Southern Cause, i.e., the Confederacy.

He has a whole website on that at: http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/

My views on that subject have undergone a substantial shift over the last four years. I still believe that under the original understanding of the Constitution, the South had the right to secede, but I no longer believe that the South had sufficient justification for exercising that right. This is why you will notice that my Civil War site has many articles that defend Abraham Lincoln and George McClellan. In fact, I have devoted an entire website to a defense of McClellan (there are links to it on my Civil War site). People who have been following my Civil War site for some time have noticed that I took down my harshly critical anti-Lincoln article, because my views on Lincoln have undergone a dramatic shift.

[John Iacoletti]

Until recently, Mr. Griffith was the ‘go to’ expert at this forum when a CTer wished to argue against the Ballistic Neuromuscular Spasm Hypothesis. His other believes are pertinent. If John McAdams were to argue that the South didn’t secede in order to maintain Slavery, but was really over High Tariffs (which in 1860 were actually at their lowest level since 1816), you don’t think CTers would fine this pertinent?

No.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of an argument about the JFK assassination.

But where exactly does Griffith argue that the south didn’t secede in order to maintain slavery?  Because you're the guy who falsely accused Mantik of being a holocaust denier.

[John Iacoletti]

We know the Harper fragment went forward. We can see it flying forward in frames 313 and 314.

That's a circular argument.  You're assuming that what you see is the Harper fragment with one of your patented "most likely" arguments.

First of all, must a fragment be sent flying directly in line with the bullet? Looking at frame 313:

Supposedly it was a glancing shot displacing skull to the right of the midline.  So what force carries it to the left?

And no ballistic expert has found it impossible for a fragment from the head to be sent flying up and forward and to the left of the limousine.

This is one of those nonsense phrases that is meaningless.  What "ballistic expert" has opined one way or the other?  "Ballistic experts", like anyone else, have to make a boatload of assumptions about the source of the shot, the weapon used, the speed of the bullet, the exact moment of the strike, etc, in order to evaluate what they would subjectively think is possible or not.