JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 970)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

...experts have concluded the X-ray is a forgery...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Says the Almighty Garry Puffer as he totally ignores the 20 photo "experts" who were specifically tasked with the chore of determining whether or not the autopsy photos and X-rays were forgeries.

Garry completely flushes Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7 down the nearest toilet without batting an eyelash.....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41

So what's the point of even HAVING "Photographic Panels" like the HSCA panel at all, Garry? You think all of them blew it (or were flat-out lying). ALL of them. Correct?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I'm talking about one specific X-ray, David. Don't change the subject.

What your "experts" called an "artifact" or a "water spot" was shown by X-ray expert Dr. David Mantik to have been an object added to the skull and not present the night of the autopsy. That makes it a forgery.

Dr. David Mantik was able to establish, through optical density measurements, that the 6.5 mm object seen on President Kennedy's autopsy x-rays is not metallic, that its image was superimposed over a smaller, genuine fragment, and that the 6.5 mm object must have been added to the x-ray after the autopsy.

But the almighty David Von Pein knows better than Dr. Mantik. He can say that Dr. Mantik's opinion doesn't count or that Dr. Mantik is wrong, but that's just lame. Other X-ray experts have found this X-ray to be quite troubling. David does too, but it would be too painful for him to admit it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

From the JFK Bible....

[Quote On:]

"How would this "fake 6.5 mm object," as [Dr. David] Mantik calls it, implicate Oswald? .... 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?

Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the sinister implications of the "cardboard artifact" for the first time 35 years later when he published his findings in the book Assassination Science? Isn't this silly, again, on its face?"
-- Vince Bugliosi; Page 222 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (2007)


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID (QUOTING FROM A DISCUSSION THAT OCCURRED IN 2006):

BEN HOLMES SAID (ON APRIL 15, 2006):

No-one saw it [the "6.5mm. object" on the X-ray] on the night of the autopsy, despite an almost frantic search for bullets or bullet fragments.


BUD SAID:

This is a lie, and Ben knows it, as I've pointed it out to him before. The x-ray tech taking the x-rays said he pointed the object out to the chief radiologist, who declared it an artifact. Presumably he would have told the autopsists the same thing, who would then ignore the object (especially if they looked in that area and saw no such fragment). When asked about the object decades later, what reason would they have to remember it if the chief radiologist told them it wasn't real the day of the autopsy?


BUD ALSO SAID:

Here we see a kook trying to disregard the physical evidence on the grounds of a legal technicality. If you are really trying to approach this case to figure out what happened, you wouldn't be trying to throw out evidence, or find reasons to disregard it. You'd approach each piece of evidence on the grounds of what is likely and rational. This is what the kooks can't do, they leap towards conspiracy every chance they can, concocting far-fetched scenarios that they've convinced themselves are "likely" and "rational". That's why it is useless to argue this case with kooks, they have no ratonality to apply to the case, they can't see what an unlikely proposition they are presenting.


More from that 2006 discussion HERE.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Very humorous.

The object is visible on an X-ray that was not seen at the autopsy. Therefore someone forged it and entered it into the evidence.

The implications of a forged X-ray are pretty horrible for the LN claims.

David totally avoids dealing with what is right there in front of him, and instead uses the (very lame) "why would anyone do this?" defense. This allows him to completely avoid dealing with what is there by positing that it cannot possibly be there because no one would be stupid enough to put it there.

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" - Groucho Marx

Is that about right, David? No one would forge an X-ray because they might get caught?

Your best days are most assuredly behind you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's never been proven WHAT the "6.5mm object" is, Garry. I have no idea what it is. You have no idea what it is. And nobody else does either. So why pretend you DO know when you know you don't know?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

An X-ray not seen at the autopsy, shown to have been forged.

This means nothing to you? Raises no flags? It's a FORGED X-ray, David. It's not about me and what I believe, it's a forged X-ray. Deal with that issue, would you? Stop evading the main point here.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't think it's a forged X-ray. And neither did the House Select Committee. (Remember 7 HSCA 41, Garry? Care to ignore those 20 photo experts yet again?)

And you do not KNOW the AP X-ray [seen here at 7 HSCA 111] is a "forged X-ray". You're guessing. And you are guessing wrong. And 7 HSCA 41 proves you are guessing incorrectly.

Use your head and think about Bugliosi's point again, too. Somebody fakes an X-ray and then never makes sure the "fragment" comes to anybody's attention?? What was the purpose of the "forgery" then? Just for the kicks of faking an X-ray?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

There you go again... desperately trying to use speculation to over-ride the evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh brother, Ben! That's another classic Pot/Kettle moment from a conspiracy theorist to be sure. CTers have a patent on allowing "speculation to over-ride the evidence".

That's too funny, Ben.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

The 6.5 mm. artifact PROVES NOTHING. Even if we make the unwarranted assumption of the artifact being a "cardboard" forgery (per Dr. Mantik)....ask yourself: What does this prove? Anything at all?

The idea some dolts wanted to phony up an X-ray by placing a hunk of cardboard on it is pure idiocy. (As if the guns, bullets, shells, and Oswald's killing of Tippit didn't seal the deal on his guilt already.)

Get real.


KEVIN T. DRAISS SAID:

I love watching DVP hand you guys your asses. Smells like napalm in the morning. It smells like victory.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Yep, forged evidence has no meaning in a murder case. You bet.

Do your handlers know you write crap like this?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, my handlers are all drunk tonight (it's the July 4th holiday, you know). So I'm all alone in the Langley basement. Just me and my life-sized bust of J. Edgar to keep me company.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

From Dr. Mantik:

"To date, no one (unless forgery is invoked) has been able to explain this bizarre 6.5 mm object on JFK's AP X-ray. Even the experts for the ARRB (including the forensic radiologist, John J. Fitzpatrick, who was visibly troubled by this strange feature) could not explain this fantastic object. So we are left with this conclusion about this hardest of "hard" evidence: an odd event occurred in JFK's X-rays that has never, before or since, been seen in the history of radiology. Furthermore, even the best experts in forensic radiology still cannot explain it."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can't prove the X-ray is forged and you know it.

Furthermore, as I stated before, it's just plain dumb to want to forge an X-ray in such a manner. (With cardboard? Please.)

But you like Mantik's "cardboard" crap better than you like ANY anti-conspiracy explanation. So, you'll swallow Mantik -- hook, line, and cardboard.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Forged X-rays in a murder case? No meaning?

I don't have to prove it's a forgery. Dr. Mantik has done that. Of course you know better because of all those credentials you have.

You cannot dismiss it by saying it would have been dumb or unnecessary. Those are the arguments of someone who has lost and refuses to admit it.

You're losing your grip.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mantik has "proved" no such thing.

You've already lost your grip, Garry. You're merely latching on to Mantik's incredibly silly "cardboard object" theory because it provides you with a reason (albeit a really silly one) to believe the things you want to believe about the shadowy "conspiracy" and "cover up" related to President Kennedy's demise.

In other words, to hell with common sense. Let's just pretend it's cardboard.

Lovely.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Tell that to Ebersole.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm going to repeat the following 2006 post that was written by Ben Holmes' aaj/acj nemesis, Bud, wherein Bud says something to the effect that Bethesda radiologist John H. Ebersole (at least I assume it's Ebersole that Bud is talking about here) said that he saw the "artifact" on the X-ray on the night of the autopsy and told somebody else about seeing it.

Now, I'm not sure what source Bud was using when he made this comment in 2006, but I'll tell you one thing (and I'm not ashamed to admit this at all), I'll take Bud's word for almost anything as it relates to the JFK case rather than believe anything uttered by the pack of conspiracy-happy hounds.

I'll also say that I have not confirmed this comment made by Bud nine years ago, but I know a little about Mr. "Bud" at the aaj and acj forums, and he is not likely to shoot off his mouth about something for which he has no support whatsoever. And I doubt he did so in this instance when he said this....

"The x-ray tech taking the x-rays said he pointed the object out to the chief radiologist, who declared it an artifact. Presumably he would have told the autopsists the same thing, who would then ignore the object (especially if they looked in that area and saw no such fragment). When asked about the object decades later, what reason would they have to remember it if the chief radiologist told them it wasn't real the day of the autopsy?" -- Bud; April 17, 2006


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

After digging into the Usenet forum archives some more, I found the source that Bud was using in the 2006 post above. He was using the October 28, 1997, ARRB testimony of X-ray technician Jerrol Custer, which can be found HERE.

Here is the relevant testimony....

QUESTION -- Earlier you pointed to what I'm going to call a half-circle that appears to be the lightest part of the film [X-ray], and you referred to that as a bullet fragment, is that right?

JERROL CUSTER -- Yes, sir.

QUESTION -- Do you know where that bullet fragment was located in the body?

CUSTER -- Right orbital, superior.

QUESTION -- How do you know it was the right orbital ridge, rather than the back of the skull?

CUSTER -- Because of the protruding eyeball.

QUESTION -- Did you see the fragment removed?

CUSTER -- No, I did not. Can I interject something here?

QUESTIONER -- Sure.

CUSTER -- This area, I pointed it out to Dr. Ebersole as a fragment. And he called it an artifact.


-----------------------

[End ARRB Excerpts.]

-----------------------

Now, I'm not 100% sure Jerrol Custer was referring to the now-famous "6.5 mm. object" in the above testimony, but if he was referring to that object, then it destroys Dr. David Mantik's theory about the "artifact" being added to the X-ray at a later date.

Right after posting the above testimony of Custer, Bud said this....

"Ebersole's job was to interpret the x-rays. If Ebersole told the doctors to ignore the object because it was an artifact, that could explain why it doesn't appear in their accounts." -- Bud; March 26, 2010

-----------------------

FWIW, later that same day (3/26/10), John McAdams offered up this remark in a direct reply to Bud's comments about Custer's ARRB testimony....

"That's excellent work on your part. I've tended to just blow this off, since the autopsists weren't competent with *forensic* autopsies, and there would have been no reason to mention the fragment anyway. But OK, you have a comprehensible explanation." -- John McAdams; March 26, 2010

-----------------------

And just so the conspiracy theorists won't accuse me of leaving out anything they might consider to be of importance, I'll also add this additional piece of testimony from Jerrol Custer's ARRB session, which was uttered by Custer immediately after he had said the words "and he called it an artifact"....

CUSTER -- I said, "How about these fragments up here?" This is when he told me to mind my own business.

So, based on that rather callous remark made by Dr. Ebersole, maybe some industrious conspiracy buff can find a way to include Dr. John Ebersole into some kind of JFK assassination cover-up.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Of course he [Mantik] has proved it, David. You quite obviously have read nothing about what he did and how simple it is to replicate. You really can't get much harder evidence than that. And you dismiss it because the implications destroy everything you've been lying about for all these years.

Pathetic.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well then, Garry, based on Mantik's "cardboard" discovery, he should be able to get somebody in Congress (or somewhere) to re-open the JFK case and start up a whole new investigation. Right?

After all, Mantik has "proved" forgery in the Kennedy assassination case, correct?

We can call the new investigative body "The Cardboard Commission". (Has a nice ring.)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

How does one reply to such nonsense?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Garry,

Do you really believe Dr. Mantik's "cardboard artifact" tears down the entire case that indicates Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the JFK and Tippit murders?

Really and truly? You believe that?

How does one even begin to respond to such a nonsensical leap of faith?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

The three autopsy pathologists did not see this object the night of the autopsy. They did not ignore it because they were told it was an artifact, good old Bud notwithstanding. They have said that they did not SEE it in the X-rays that night.

Not there on 11/22. Is there later. Hmmm.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But, as I posted previously, Jerrol Custer's testimony indicates at least the possibility that the "thing" was there on the X-ray on 11/22/63.

Which, if true, blows Mantik's cardboard theory sky high.

And, as I take another look at the alleged phony X-ray in question (at 7 HSCA 111), let's see what "object" on this X-ray best fits the description we see in Jerrol Custer's 1997 ARRB testimony....

"A half-circle that appears to be the lightest part of the film [X-ray]."

...which appears on the X-ray (anatomically speaking) in the...

"Right orbital, superior."

Hmmm. I wonder what object in this X-ray sort of fits that description and location?....




CHRIS/"MAINFRAMETECH" SAID:

Sheesh! The usual DVP edited conversation, putting in only those parts that make him look better, and others look worse. A sad situation. Here is a perfect example of using information the wrong way. The information argued about above could be an indication of how hard the conspirators worked to cover up things in the case rather than an indication of something proving Oswald was guilty, which has already been proven isn't true.

We start with an attempt to discredit David Mantik, MD, PhD. He didn't get all those letters running track. He has worked with X-rays and that field for years. He's not a fool as portrayed. He found through intensive work that the X-ray with the 6.5 mass was a forgery, as later Jerrol Custer said was the case when a researcher went to the archives and came back telling Custer what he found on the various X-rays, and Custer was able to say unequivocally that they ALL were copies, and no originals were in the whole set. ....

[More of Chris' babbling can be found here.]


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Lost in a world of perceived (and imagined) plotters.

Conspiracy everywhere you look....plotters in every nook and cranny trying to frame Oswald for TWO murders....evidence planting....evidence tampering....crooked cops....an even crooked(er) FBI....and a Warren Commission that never wanted (or intended) to find the truth at all.

This, then, is the imaginative world inhabited by a conspiracy theorist named Chris/Mainframe.

As Mr. Mainframe/Chris said --- "a sad situation" (indeed).

Footnote ----

I want to thank Bud (again) for his many years of valuable input regarding topics relating to JFK's assassination. The Usenet archive is a much better place to scour and search knowing that Bud's common-sense posts are going to regularly turn up in search results, such as this post written by Bud in response to some stupid remark that was uttered by conspiracy clown David G. Healy one day in March of 2010....

"This is why your hero [Ben Holmes] killfiled me, no other reason. Now you'll see the real intellectual coward come out in him. Last time I brought up this Custer dialog, he sputtered that it was a different fragment being discussed. Right Ben, it's a different lightest colored half-circle fragment in the right orbital superior being discussed." -- Bud; March 26, 2010

[End Quote.]

As I said previously, I'm not absolutely 100% sure that Custer and Ebersole were talking about the famous "6.5 mm. opacity" when Ebersole told Custer it was an "artifact". But if they WEREN'T talking about the 6.5 mm. object that David Mantik is so obsessed with, it would make for an interesting coincidence, wouldn't it? I.E., "half-circle" in shape; the "lightest" part of the X-ray; located in the "right" part of the head.

Those coincidences should make even Dr. Mantik squirm just a little bit and scratch his head in bewilderment.


PAT SPEER SAID:

Geez, Louise, David. You post all this stuff from Vince B and Bud, etc, when you should have just used ME. I thought you followed what happens in the research community. I shot Mantik down on this and other points years ago.

The last half of this chapter is devoted to the 6.5 mm fragment:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18%3Ax-rayspecs

The 6.5 mm fragment was not on the back of the head; it was the large fragment removed from behind the eye at autopsy.

http://www.patspeer.com/believingis.jpg

http://www.patspeer.com/fragmentfragment.jpg

Now, this so enraged Mantik that he posted a response to this on CTKA [HERE], where I was not allowed to respond.

Only he made a bunch of mistakes there, as well. Which I pointed out on my website and elsewhere.

And this led to our "debate" at the 2013 Wecht Conference. While the focus of that debate was the Harper fragment, the underlying subtext was "who was more credible." I believe I came away the winner.

The so-called 6.5 mm fragment was the fragment removed from behind the eye at autopsy. And that's a fact.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you for weighing in on this, Pat. I appreciate it. (And thanks for the links too.)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Keep searching, David. Anything to avoid reading Dr. Mantik's account. I know how desperate you are here, but apparently you are happy if you can get someone, ANYONE, to prop you up on this one.

Not sure what Pat Speer's problem is here.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The main point, of course, is --- IF the "thing" seen by Custer and Ebersole at Bethesda on November 22 is the SAME "thing" Mantik loves so much (regardless of whether it was a real bullet fragment in President Kennedy's head or just an artifact on the X-ray film), then it was there on 11/22/63 and could not have been something ADDED to the X-ray at a later date.

Get it, Garry?

David Von Pein
July 4-6, 2015
July 6, 2015