JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It [the 6.5 mm. object on a JFK X-ray] is not a "bullet" fragment at all.
As for my explanation for the "6.5 mm. thing" -- I have no explanation. None whatsoever. I have no idea what that "thing" is on the X-ray. Yes, the HSCA said it was, indeed, a metal (bullet) fragment. But I have my doubts about that. Maybe it's an artifact that simply was missed being seen in 1963. I really don't know. But I certainly do not for one second believe that anyone would have wanted to "plant" the "object/opacity" onto that X-ray.
JOHN CANAL SAID:
DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE GALL TO THINK THOSE READING YOUR B/S ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THE 6.5 MM THING WAS "ADDED" BUT NOT "PLANTED"?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
John Canal should learn how to read. I never once said that I am of the opinion that the 6.5-millimeter "object" on the X-ray was "added" to the X-ray after 11/22/63 ("accidentally" or otherwise).
I'm admitting I have no idea what it is. But I specifically stated my belief that WHATEVER it is, it certainly was not planted or added to the X-ray film after the autopsy.
Whatever the "thing" is, it was certainly THERE ON NOVEMBER 22ND when Dr. Humes (et al) looked at the X-rays at Bethesda.
I now give you Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq. (yes, him again):
"But if Dr. [David] Mantik’s conspirators were going to commit the forgery he claims they did, instead of using a “simple piece of cardboard” to simulate a bullet fragment (the very use of which enabled him to detect the alleged forgery), why wouldn’t they use an actual bullet fragment?
Also, what possible advantage would the conspirators have gained by forging the object onto the X-ray film? The thought that they would risk getting caught doing this to implicate Oswald in a case in which he and his rifle were already overwhelmingly connected to the assassination is irrational on its face.
One should add that if, indeed, Dr. Mantik’s conspirators were willing to do something so extremely risky and completely unnecessary to frame Oswald, wouldn’t they have found some way to bring it to the attention of the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964?
Surely Dr. Mantik doesn’t want us to believe the “fragment” was superimposed on the X-rays after the Warren Commission had already concluded that Oswald was the lone gunman. Indeed, in his 2001 writing on the subject, Mantik says the forgery was accomplished “shortly after the autopsy,” which would be before the Warren Report came out, ten months after the assassination.
Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the sinister implications of the “cardboard artifact” for the first time thirty-five years later when he published his findings in the book "Assassination Science"? Isn’t this silly, again, on its face?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 222 of Endnotes section of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"
David Von Pein
May 20, 2009
Posted By: David Von Pein