Anyone who rejects Dr. Mantik's OD measurements on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays needs to explain how and why the measurements are wrong. OD measurement is an established science. Dr. Mantik made multiple sets of OD measurements on the skull x-rays in his several trips to the National Archives. He has published those measurements. Dr. Michael Chessar made his own OD measurements on the skull x-rays at the National Archives, and his findings confirm Dr. Mantik's.
When Dr. Fitzpatrick dismissed Dr. Mantik's OD research, he offered no explanation for the OD measurements, nor did he bother to do his own OD measurements. Fitzpatrick may not have known how to do OD measurements, but he is a forensic radiologist, so one would presume he knew how. Radiation oncologists use OD measurements frequently. Of course, Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist, and also a physicist.
Why is it that not a single WC apologist has arranged for an independent radiation oncologist or neuroscientist to do OD measurements on the skull x-rays? Why didn't Dr. Fitzpatrick do so when he had full access to the autopsy materials for the ARRB? Why haven't any WC apologists ventured to explain Dr. Mantik's and Dr. Chessar's OD measurements? I think we all know the answers to these questions, even if some of us won't say so publicly.
Dr. Fitzpatrick was obviously reluctant to conclude that the skull x-rays have been altered, and so he naturally could not accept Dr. Mantik's OD measurements and still believe the x-rays are unaltered.
Keep in mind that Pat Speer got his whacky theory that the white patch was caused by the flap over the right ear from none other than Dr. Fitzpatrick. It was Dr. Fitzpatrick who suggested that the white patch was caused by the bone flap seen over the right ear in the autopsy photos.
But, of course, this is ridiculous. Not only is the flap not thick enough to be the white patch, but it is nowhere near the area covered by the white patch. Anyone can look at the autopsy photos and see that the flap is above the right ear, but the white patch on the skull x-rays is undeniably behind the right ear and well below the flap. Indeed, part of the white patch extends into the parietal region. This isn't even a close call.
Here is Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer's criticisms:
http://www.themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf
Now where did Speer concede to all of Mantik's counter-arguments?
The Sibert and O'Neill report was not among the ARRB-released materials. However, the information that Sibert and O'Neill revealed in their ARRB depositions was new, and it agreed with what several of the ARRB-released HSCA medical interviews revealed, especially O'Neill's disclosure that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the bullet that was found in Dallas had fallen out of the back wound. In fact, let's quote part of what O'Neill said about this:
Sibert told the ARRB the same thing. Sibert said he called Killion to see if any bullets had been found because the autopsy doctors said the back wound had no exit point:
Sibert confirmed that Dr. Finck also probed the back wound:
Sibert explained more about the probing and the fact that the autopsy doctors--"Finck, in particular"--said they could feel the end of the back wound:
John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, told the ARRB that the back wound was probed and that the probe did not come out of the neck:
When the ARRB released the HSCA medical interviews and the transcripts of the ARRB's own medical interviews, WC apologists seemed to show little or no interest in them, whereas WC skeptics studied them carefully and found numerous crucial disclosures.
You're claiming the controversy over the neck transit was unknown until "disclosed" (sensationally, the way you tell it) by the ARRB. Not so, the Silbert-O'Neill Report had that, and Humes and Bowell testified before the WC and HSCA about their initial suspicion during the autopsy that the back wound had no exit, though they found it strange at the time. Humes wondered about it after the autopsy and said that after a discussion with Dr. Perry of Parkland, he became convinced that the throat wound was the exit point and that a neck transit helped explain the bruising of the lung and so forth.
WC apologists have lamely dismissed these accounts as "mistaken," "faulty memories," etc.,
The ARRB cautioned against accepting everything a witness said:
"Finally, a significant problem that is well known to trial lawyers, judges,
and psychologists, is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Witnesses
frequently, and inaccurately, believe that they have a vivid recollection of
events. Psychologists and scholars have long-since demonstrated the
serious unreliability of peoples' recollections of what they hear and see."
even though the witnesses gave their accounts independently and with no knowledge of what other witnesses had said, and even though those witnesses who were also interviewed by the ARRB confirmed their HSCA accounts.
How do you know what might have influenced the ARRB medical witnesses? Do you know if they read any of the hundreds of conspiracy books or saw a documentary on TV? The "JFK" movie was a big deal a few years earlier.
You can bet that if numerous autopsy witnesses had independently given mutually corroborating accounts that said the probing of the back wound determined that the exit point was the throat, and if all of those witnesses who were also interviewed by the ARRB confirmed their earlier accounts, WC apologists would--justifiably--view those accounts as powerful evidence. But, since the HSCA and ARRB interviews reveal the opposite--that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point--WC apologists must, at least publicly, lamely dismiss them as "mistaken."
Again. No one is saying they weren't honestly testifying. Furthermore, the ARRB are asking questions right out of the CT playbook.
We can see that any probing of the "official" neck-transit missile channel would be near to the body cavity lining above the tip of the lung. A back entry wound-site lower than the "official" site, as most critics contend, would mean a bullet only penetrated about the length of the bullet (any further, it would have penetrated the body cavity). And it wouldn't have bruised across the tip of the lung. What happened to such a low-entry back bullet? And what happened to the throat wound bullet if it likewise penetrated a short distance?
Let's see what Finck told the ARRB about the extent of the probing?
Q: When you were performing the autopsy of President Kennedy,
did you make any attempts to track the course of the bullet—
A: Yes.
Q:—that you referred to as the upper back?
A: Yes. That was unsuccessful with a probe from what I remember.
Q: What kind of probe did you use?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Is there a standard type of probe that is used in autopsies?
A: A non-metallic probe.
Q: In using the probe, did you attempt to determine the angle of the
entrance of the bullet into President Kennedy's body?
A: Yes. It was unsuccessful from what I remember.
Q: In the probes that you did make, did you find any evidence that
would support a bullet going into the upper back and existing from the
place where the tracheotomy incision had been performed?
A: From what I recall, we stated the probing was unsuccessful.
...
Q: Do you have any recollection of photographs being taken with probes
inserted into the wounds?
A: I don't.
...
Q: At the time you concluded the autopsy, on the night of November
22nd-23rd, did you have any conclusion in your own mind about what
had happened to the bullet that entered the upper thoracic cavity?
A: No. And that was the reason for the phone call of Dr. Humes the
following morning, and he found out there was a wound of exit in the
front of the neck. But at the time of the autopsy, we were not aware
of that exit wound in the front of the neck.
...
Q: Sure. Did the angle of the probe when you inserted the probe into
the wound, begin in a direction that pointed down into the thoracic
cavity rather than out the throat?
A: I don't think I can answer the question, because we said the probing
was unsuccessful. So how can I determine an angle if the probing
was unsuccessful?
Humes to the ARRB:
A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high
in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the
exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew
in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than
we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate
and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper
lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's
obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
...
... it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell
you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the
point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in
this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't
be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature.
It just doesn't work that way.
Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path—
A. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive
efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no.
...
Q. Do you recall any photograph or X-ray that was taken with a probe
inserted into the post thorax?
A. No, absolutely not. I do not have a recollection of such.
Boswell to the ARRB:
Q. Previously in the deposition, you've made reference to there being a
probe to help track the direction of the neck wound. Do you recall that?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Could you tell me about how long the probe was or describe the
dimensions of the probe?
A. It's a little soft metal instrument that looks like a needle with a blunt
end on one end and a flattened end on the other, like a needle that you
would knit with or something. And it's, I would say, eight inches long,
blunt on one end and sort of has a sharp point on the other end.
Q. Were there any X-rays taken with the probe inside the body that
you recall?
A. No.
Q. How far in did the probe go?
A. Very short distance. Three inches, about.
Q. Were there any photographs taken with the probe inserted?
A. I doubt it.
...
... When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was—
if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the
coat had been—was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched
up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this
would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the
way I know this best is my memory of the fact that—see, we probed this hole
which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such
a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had
closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it. But when
we opened the chest and we got at—the lung extends up under the clavicle
and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through
into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura.
And so if I can move this up to here—it's shown better on the front, actually.
The wound came through and downward just above the thoracic cavity and
out at about the thyroid cartilage. So if you put a probe in this and got it back
through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck.
