Well, important information about the November in Dallas Lancer conference coming up. Just
to let you know. Virtual tickets are now available for in person and for
the online both or one or the other if you like. There's also a
student price of a thirty nine ninety nine, but you must show proof of
being a student if you attend. Tickets are on sale right now online at
Assassination Conference dot com. The date is November twenty second to the twenty fourth
of twenty twenty four at the Hotel Dallas Marriotte Downtown. Room prices start at
one hundred and sixty nine dollars per night. Book a room at the Marriotte.
There's reservations if you dial one eight hundred two two eight nine two nine
oh or two one four nine seven three nine thousand and mention the November in
Dallas conference Group rate. One. Other special thing for listeners of the O'Kelly
effect if you use code o'celly ten for ten percent off your ticket online.
You can get a discount there you chilly effect. Its answered by Wallstreet Window
dot com and listeners like you Yeah and nowgrated noise in our media. Jack
June sixth, twenty twenty four allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar.
This is the show you were looking for. How do I know that?
Because you found it the o'celly effect. And we are broadcasting live on
a thurs Day in twenty twenty four. Now this is an early show,
actually just a bit after nearly twenty minutes after six pm Eastern time in what
we used to call America. But it's a live early show. Why are
we adjusting our time? Well, because I have doctor David Mantick with me.
And why do I have doctor David Mantick with me? Because not just
because he's a you know, an interesting author, a cool guy, and
wrote a book with your own corsi recently. No, not at all.
Actually, today I want to focus on this book I'm holding in my hand
for those of you you you know, playing the theater of the mind game
at home and not watching the video. I'm holding a book called Decoded.
Okay, the JFK Assassination Decoded Criminal forgery in the autopsy photographs and X rays.
Now that's a mouthful. And that is the title that the book was
settled on, although I'm told it was printed maybe with a slightly different title
before. But either way. This book is not your common here's my theory,
here's a couple things to support it. Here's why I think other people
are wrong. And here's my stunner, my gotcha, my special piece of
information that I think is special book. And yes, I'm mocking some people,
but you don't know who they are. I'm not going to name him.
It's not one of those. It's not a well written version of that.
It's not a poorly written version of that, not at all. This
is more like something you put on your bookshelf because it's a reference book visually
and by the text contained within. It's a reference material. It is something
that you could turn to to get various pieces of information. And you don't
even here's the fun part. You don't even necessarily have to agree with everything
doctor Mantick lays out, because he's showing you a whole lot of evidence that
you could interpret for yourself. Even so, it has multiple purposes, of
course, doctor Mantick tells you, and I haven't read the entire thing because
I've had to go back over certain parts, and we're going to focus on
a few of the images. For those of you catching the video, it'll
make more sense, but it's okay. You can play the theater of the
mind game, which I love about radio anyway, along with us tonight here
on this Thursday. So enough out of me. First of all, how
you doing tonight, doctor Mantick. Very well, good to see you,
Chuck. Yes, look, it's good to see and hear from you,
for sure, and I'm looking forward to this now. You're a doctor for
more than one reason, and you know, not just a guy that I
did encounter probably first in the book Assassination Science in the late nineties. I
was thinking about did I see you in articles or anything before that? But
for clarity's sake, you had done some conferences. But the first time your
work on this case was printed in a book was Assassination Science, which was
a compilation of various authors assembled by James Fetzer in the late nineties, right,
nineteen ninety eight, Well, there you go, nineteen ninety eight,
late nineties. I'm close enough. But this book is a couple of years
old now, and I am super shocked actually as I look over the you
know, the reception from the community, et cetera, that there wasn't a
whole lot more. I don't know laudable commentary on this, because you literally
did create a reference material, a textbook in a way. Again, even
if you don't necessarily agree with every conclusion or every supposition that you might have
offered along the way throughout the book, you've created something loaded with tons of
reference material that is extremely valuable to have all in one relatively small space compared
to the voluminous library of information that someone could attain on the case. I
mean, are you a little surprised that you didn't get I don't know more
people saying, hey, this is a unique thing that you should definitely consider
adding to your collection. If you're someone that so wishes to be serious about
the exploration of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, I'm curious about that.
First off, Well, I am a little surprised, but you have
to realize that although quite a lot of people are interested in the assassination of
JFK not so very many are interested in the medical aspects of the assassination.
So it's a very limited audience and we have to keep that in mind.
Now. I went I had another comment about the book. It is just
full of color illustrations which are otherwise surprisingly difficult to find, and that's another
reason why it could be reviewed. It could be viewed as a textbook,
just as you said. Oh yeah, and I'm glad that you put it
more eloquently than myself. But that's true. I mean, it is absolutely
packed. By the way, We're not talking about a couple of very nice
photos or some you know, a small section of photos throughout the entire volume,
or various illustrations. Some of them are from historical evidence, others our
original creations, some of them are adaptations of previously seen images. I mean,
you run the gamuty here, like I said, very much like a
textbook would do. Right, Here's what evidence we may have here is an
ill stration of something that seems to have occurred based on X y Z information.
I mean, this is really I think people don't understand the level of
work that goes into assembling something like this. So again I want to point
out this is a unique piece. And just because it shows a poprie of
a few samples of the images on the back cover, oh, you're right.
As a matter of fact, we have Now I'm going to act like
I don't really know a lot during this discussion, because I want you to
explain things. But fact is, I mean I see just turning it over
and looking at the back cover. First of all, that looks like Sarah
Wack. Is that Serah Wick. It is Sarah Wack with my two children.
The late Ciri Wack is up in the upper left hand corner, which
you know sad to have seen him past recently, and we'll be doing a
tribute to him at the Lancer conference, which I hope lots of people will
add some audio commentary into more on that later from you guys. Back to
the back cover here, gee, it looks like I see the Harper fragment.
I see maybe a frame from the let's see a frame from the NIXT
film. I see illustration of a skull. I mean, there is a
lot of stuff happening here. Sorry, but just to show you guys on
camera for those of you watching a video on Rumble or wherever it is,
we're gonna wind up being able allowed to post this. I'm not sure if
YouTube will let us because some of the imagery might be graphic, but I
know Rumble will allow this, and a few other channels will. But there's
an interesting array just on the back cover. You're correct, sir, I
didn't even think of that. So let's get into this book unless you want
to talk a little bit about why it is you felt it necessary to construct
this I'm imagining because you couldn't find one for yourself. A lot of people
that decide to write books about this or decide to add something significant to the
literature, decide to do it because they found a gap in the information.
Is it that you said to yourself, you know, I wish I had
a reference book, I might as well make one myself. Or was there
another reason for this? Well, another reason is that it basically is a
summation of three or four decades of work on the JFK assassination. And I
thought it would be useful to have it all in one volume for anybody who
was interested. Okay, so a composite of all of your work. Again,
if you go from ninety eight two thousand and eight is ten years,
twenty eighteen twenty two thousand. Well, geez, here we go, right,
I mean you're talking three decades worth the work. Yes, So okay,
let's begin with what we should begin with. Now. You gave me
a couple of pages to focus on tonight, and I want to get right
to them, to hit people kind of over the head with it, if
you don't mind, although don't literally do that. It's a little heavy,
but the thing is, let's hit him over the head with it, because
I think it's important. The first image that that you directed me to is
before page one, so I'm gonna hold that up for people, and I
know what this is, but maybe you could describe it and tell us why
this is here and what the text is about. In the image, I'm
caught on my wire. But there you go. Some of the medial image
that is towards the center of the page. It shows the official anterior posterior
X ray of JFK, supposedly taken at the autopsy. What it's really strange
here is the six point five centimeter white, nearly round object inside JFK's right
orbit. Now, if you can't see it here, you can find it
online very easily. This, however, is not what doctor James Hume saw
the night of the autopsy. Now how can that be? This is the
official photograph X ray, but this is not what James Hume saw. What
he saw was the X ray image on the lateral side, and the difference
is that the six point five milimeter object has nearly disappeared from the right orbit.
Look carefully inside the right orbit. Hm, okay, well, look
photoshopped in order to show what most likely doctor James Hume saw that night.
It was just a tiny sliver of a piece of metal. It was not
that six point five millimeter object that shows up on the official X ray today
in the National Archives. Now, just for clarity's sake, a question here.
This is the enhanced version of the of the X ray though, right,
this is not. Yeah, this was enhanced by the House Select Committee
on a Assassinations. And I use this because if I use the unenhanced ones,
you would miss an awful lot of detail. So this is really the
only viable means present the X rays visually. This is the best presentable image
because I have seen the other Yeah, it's almost unusable if we use the
un enhanced images, right, I mean, it is a kin to looking
at a photograph of smoke. Really, if you look at the raw image,
from my understanding, that's almost what it looks like. Very difficult to
discern. And here's the interesting part about this. You might have some particular
I don't know, life experience that would inform your ability to interpret this.
Huh, could you tell us about that a little bit. I'm not quite
sure what you mean by a life experience here. Are you talking about my
viewing the X rays at the archives? Yes, yeah, of course.
I have, of course, on nine occasions seen the actual X rays at
the archives, and seeing them in person is not at all like looking at
these printed images, Nor is it like looking at the unenhanced image. Right,
looking at a paper reproduction is not like looking at the actual X ray.
So I've done that nine times. But I can tell you that this
is the best we can do in print right now. This is the best
thing to show to the layman, or to show to anybody really, to
give them the best view of it. And it's meaningful. It's not misleading.
It's meaningful. We can see where the bone, where the bones are,
we can see where the air is in the skull, and we can
see where the metal fragments are. So it's all meaningful. So what is
the significance to this outside of the fact that the autopsy doctor does not see
something that is clearly in the image, and he's allegedly looking at it that
night as it's being produced, and also has an X ray person with him,
right, actually a team of guys. There's two guys running back and
worth developing X rays, and there's somebody there to read the X rays,
another doctor to help him with this. So it's not all Hume's interpretation.
He's got himself, the two other autopsis and an X ray doctor. You
know, why is the proper term eluding me? You know what I'm talking
about though, And he's got a whole team of people there to interpret this
and say, again, what is it that he doesn't see? So during
the Assassination Records Review Board in the nineteen nineties, these X rays were shown,
not these pictures, but the actual X rays were shown to the three
autopsy pathologists, and they, independently, each one of them denied that they
had seen that six point five millimeter apparent cross section of a bullet during the
autopsy. It wasn't there. They all agreed on that. Now I had
the opportunity to ask John Episol that question. Io. No official government investigation
ever asked John Eversall that question, which is very unfortunate. It's quite an
oversight. But I did have that opportunity to ask him that during a telephone
conversation which I recorded and which today is at the National Archives. It has
also been transcribed and appears in Murder in Dealey Plaza, one of the books
edited by James Fetzer. Right the minute I asked doctor John Eversall, the
radiologist, about that object, he aborted the entire conversation about the case.
He never spoke to anyone ever again about the jfk assassination. That question was
far too sensitive to address. And by the way, just to add even
more authenticity to what it is you just described, I'm certain you're not aware
entirely that I've only been able to count for people that actually got an inner
view with ever saw whatever condition it was in that that I can personally vouch
for they actually spoke to him, because the record exists, okay, or
I have personal knowledge of it. Only four people have ever had more than
a question or two answered by this man. I had two interviews with him.
Yeah, the first one was not recorded, the second one one one
was recorded. There you go. But at least I'm really thrilled you got
the second one because it's very rare to have heard from him. And here's
the fun fact. Every time somebody asks a serious question that contradicts Okay,
you know anything that terminates the interview with with Eversaul. That's what it always
did, whether it was in a library near Pittsburgh, or whether it happened
on the border of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, or it happened over the phone
with you. It seems to be a consistent pattern that as soon as you
ask him a question where he's got to kind of be confronted by an inconsistency
in the evidence, the interview is over. And that's led other people to
wind up speaking to technicians who were working on the X rays that night,
like Rebe and Custer, right, And they've asked questions and guess what more
inconsistencies come up in the story? Is any of what I just said inaccurate
in your mind? No, this is right on target, Chuck, would
work on your part. I would also add, though, that the X
rays were publicly viewed by I think dozens of people at the autopsy that night.
There was one purpose, one purpose only for taking these X rays,
and that was to find substantial bullet fragments that could be related to the assassination,
right, and none were found there was no discussion by anyone about that
six point five millimeter object. No one saw it. So there you have
it. The seemingly not an National Archives either, I can tell you that.
Well, there you go. See that's the next question right before we
move on to the next image that you pointed out to me. Yeah,
so since you were at the National Archives, Hey, is it there?
No, it's not there. It's never been there. There's no record of
it being there. So just in the enhancement we see this thing very clearly
and amazing. Okay, so people trained to find this, who were looking
for metal fragments at the time, didn't find it. All right, it
gets even worse. Well, if this is truly a piece of metal,
it's got to be very long from front to back because it looks very white,
and with my measurements via optical density, I know that it's probably several
centimeters long at least from front to back. Yet when you look at the
lateral X ray, you can hardly see anything resembling that. John Fitzpatrick was
the best expert called by the AORRB, and he was so troubled by not
seeing it on the lateral X ray that he asked for a second day to
look at the lateral X ray to see if he could explain this discrepancy,
and the ARB's top expert totally failed to explain this discrepancy. He just gave
up. So this is the biggest mystery we've ever seen in all of diagnostic
radiology since X rays were discovered. So, based on the intensity of the
image that is presented there, you have an object that's pretty substantial. So
again we're not talking about a sliver, a thin, itty bitty fragment,
even according to what's on the image. This is a substantial piece of mental
right many centimeters long by optical density measurements. In fact, I compared the
optical density measurements of this object to JFK's teeth, which were mercury silver amalgams.
There were four to five of these lined up in a row, and
this object, based on the data, is supposedly longer from front to back
than all of those mercury silver amalgams piled up in a row. This makes
absolutely no sense. This is not the universe I live in. So again,
to try and bring it down to some layman's terms in case you're a
little confused, fillings and stuff in the teeth that are made with mercury and
some other metal. Those things they appear and they don't look anything like this
object, or I should say, they are less substantial. And there are
fillings in the teeth, multiple fillings, which obviously should line up to be
much bigger than a bullet fragment, but in fact do not according to your
measurements. Right, So we've we've got a comparison on the same X ray
film. We've got mercury silver amalgams on the right side and mercury silver amaldls
on the left side. I've done all those measurements. Nothing makes sense,
so you can't even put the data in order. But look, let's sticking
with the X ray. You go to a image. Let's see on page
eight or nine here, I forget which one you wanted me to go to,
but either way, images on both pages. What am I looking at
here? Oh? This is the white patch? So the white patch?
What do you mean by the white patch? And I mean I've actually seen
you give this presentation. I love this, but before we get to the
punchline on it, what do you mean by the white patch in the X
ray? Please, in the Prince, this really looks like a white patch.
And if you look at the image in the book, you'll see that
it actually looks like a white patch. And I was able to actually measure
with the optical decetometer the exact borders of this object, and it really is
quite consistent with what I've drawn here using the red marker showing a periphery raise
it up a little bit right there, or this part that part that's it
right there. I was also able to compare the optical density numbers to the
petrus bone, which is shown in this image. It's the bone that surrounds
the external ear canal, okay, and the measurements were almost the same for
those two areas. If they are the same, that would imply that the
white patch covers up bone all the way from the left side to the right
side on JFK's head, And you would have no recourse but to call him
a bonehead because of that, because literally to the solid bone from left to
right, a solid chunk of bone is present. That's what the numbers would
suggest virtually that much based on the comparison to the petrus bone, which is
the dentst bone in the human body. But it's worse than that, because
we can also look at the lateral X ray and we cannot find this dense
object on the lateral X ray. It doesn't appear anywhere on the lateral X
ray. What kind of reality is this? What kind of universe is this?
In anytime I see a dense object on one view, I see a
dense object on the other view, but that does not happen here. Well,
what this means, And again, I'm sorry to go back over things,
but I want to make this real clear. What you're saying is that,
Okay, let's imagine for a moment that there was a problem with the
machine or the creation of the X rays, okay, and it's creating inconsistencies
because something you would find that those inconsistencies, the wild idea about how thick
the bone appears in the image, would occur over and over again because the
machine is not right, you know, the actual creation of the image sort
of like when you when you have poor exposure on a photograph and it's almost
completely washed out, no color on it because there was too much light allowed
into the iris of a photograph. You go, well, it's going to
be like that throughout the entire on both the left and the right lateral X
ray, not just on one lateral X ray. Oh right. And it
does not up here on any of the other X rays taken of JFK in
the autopsies, not on the tess X rays, not on the abdominal X
race, not on the extremity X rays. It's only here on both the
left and the right lateral X ray. This is not accidental. This is
deliberate. See. But that's my point is wouldn't it be fair to say
that not only are the X rays inconsistent with each other here because they make
no sense based on the fact that you'd be looking at comparative bones in the
same setting, but they're inconsistent with each other and they're inconsistent with reality in
general, the way things should turn out in the X ray. So you
have the double inconsistency here. Is that correct? You're absolutely right? Now.
The image adjacent to this show the images again. There are two of
them here. Yes, I will get to medial image that's near the center
of the page is a pre mortem X ray of JFK. Before he died,
he had no white patch. White patch only appeared after he died.
What are the odds of that. So the part where his bone head appears
right, where it appears to be solid bone, yes, only appears post
mortem. Only after he dies does he become a bonehead. Now, this
is based not just on looking at these images. It is based on actual
measurements of the pre mortem X ray in Boston by doctor Michael Chesser using an
optical densitometer. So we're talking about real data, real science here, right,
and just subjective opinions, right, Michael Chester. You could find presentations
by him on some of the medical evidence as well, and indeed he does
some of the similar measurements. It's previous to him, by the way.
And yourself, I'd never heard of anybody doing a test like this on the
evidence. I think you were the first one. And then he was using
the same scientific method, probably inspired by you, Is that right? Yeah,
that's correct. The HSCA in the seventies, of course should have done
this, but these so called experts were all two up tooths for this.
They didn't even think about it. Well, you know, if you're not
really chasing after an answer anyway, Sorry, I have my apologies there.
Perhaps we should move along to other things that involved the head of JFK.
I mean, we're only dealing with the head so far, but why not.
There's a lot to be said here. And here's where I think on
page seventy seven is the next one that you want to go to? Well,
we could look at page nine, the very next one. Oh no
o, care go there image, and I'm going to focus on the T
shaped in Now I have to emphasize that this is not JFK's lateral X ray.
We are not allowed to show JFK's other lateral X ray. Only one
is in the public domain. Move over to the next page there, chuck,
Yeah, there you go. Now you're getting there. This is an
anonymous patient that I used as a model. But on this X ray I
drew this T shaped inscription lying on its side. This mimics what I saw
on the other lateral X ray. Now, the question is what is that
T shaped inscription about? And the answer is it is irrelevant. What is
relevant is the quality or the nature of the image that it forms. This
T shaped inscription must have been must have been created by removing the emulsion to
create the tea. And you can remove emulsion easily with your fingernail or any
piece of nail material or a file something. In the process, you're removing
the emulsion from the film, right, something with a bit of an edge
that is rigid. You can scratch away some of the emulsion, which is
basically this black stuff that is sort of attached to the plastic in a layman's
term, and when you scrape it away, now the absence of the emulsion
forms the image you see. Right. It's very easy to see where the
emulsion has been scraped off. If we were here in reality rather than on
video, your viewers could see a piece of film on which I've done that,
and they could say, oh, yeah, it's obvious it's missing.
I can see it with my eyes. It's hard to demonstrate in the video
though. So when I was at the Archives during my ninth and last visit,
I asked Steve Tilley to take the X ray, this particular X ray,
out of its transparent plastic container. Okay, this is the only time
I actually ask him to do that, Otherwise I was looking through a transparent
envelope. Basically, well, they keep him in a semi rigid plastic sea
through things so that effectively nobody's handling it, touching it with their fingers damaging
it. So Steve Tilley's wearing his gloves as I was, and he agreed
to do that. He actually took the X ray out so I could see
the surface directly with nothing in between, and lo and behold, there's no
emulsion missing. It's all intact. The emulsion is entirely intact on both sides.
And believe me, I looked very carefully on both sides, shining the
light at every possible angle to make sure I wasn't missing anything. There is
no emulsion missing in a typical X ray film, though there is emotion on
one side of basically a clear piece of plastic I mean, for lack of
a better description, is that right? Usually in the old days when we
use physical films, there was emulsion on both sides well in nineteen sixty three,
and there was also in nineteen sixty three. Okay, so these films
all have emulsion on both sides. This film, too, also had emulsion
on both sides. But I looked at both sides and there's no emotion missing
anywhere. So this cannot possibly be an original film. The only thing it
can be is a copy of an original film. The copy had no emulsions
scraped off, so naturally I wouldn't see it. But because it's such high
fidelity, it would retain the actual T shaped inscription from the original which would
appear on the copy, which basically mul would be there, still be there
because nobody scraped it off the copy. They only scraped it off the original
because it means that the emotionion is still present, but now it's kind of
clear as opposed to dark like it would have been without the damage you're scraping.
Yes, yes, so what's the point. The point is that this
is not it cannot be an original X ray film. It is a copy.
And yet the Archives keeps telling all of us and wrote this to me
in a letter. They said, all of these films are originals. That's
false. They cannot be originals simply based on this argument. If you're looking
for smoking guns, well, this is even worse. This is like Moses
burning Bush. This is transparently obviously a copy film that cannot be an original.
So the Archives is wrong. They don't even understand stand what they have.
Okay, So what this means is that whether the Archives is aware of
anything or they're completely ignorant, at some point a copy film was put in
place of what should be an original piece of evidence here one way or another.
Yes, Now you don't necessarily know exactly at what point in the chain
that was done, the chain of custody. Yeah we do. Oh you
do, okay, of course, Okay, so we'll get to that,
I guess, unless you want to lay it out here, well, this
is a good opportunity. Sure. John Eversall was recalled to the White House
in December nineteen sixty three. This was shortly after the assassination, and he
said that the reason he was recalled there was to take measurements in order to
make a bust of JFK's head. Now, why would you want to make
a bust based on an X ray in which virtually all the bones were shattered?
Yeah, I would think a nice, healthy looking photograph of him might
be. I don't know the better way to go. You know. Of
course, this is all nonsense, and I think doctor Eversall understood that,
but he had to say something, so that's what he said. Anyway,
what he did while he was at the White House was very telling. He
used a pencil to draw a straight line on one of the X rays.
It's still there. I saw it. It's only on one side of this
X ray, not on the other side, which means that it's not a
copy. The X ray line I saw was placed by John Eversall in December
nineteen sixty three. In other words, all the changes in the X rays
were made before John Eversall made that visit. Wow, well, this is
really fascinating. And again I haven't seen this. I have seen this before
in your writing. But generally speaking a lot of people get lost in this
maze, right because it's kind of hard to figure it out as you go.
But with these illustrations, at the very least, we can see directly
what's happening. And now this is this is big, big stuff. This
is critical forensic evidence of when this happened and who almost certainly had to do
it. Only John Eversoll had the creativity and experience to do this, although
he didn't seem to have the creative knowledge to understand how to make things a
little more realistic. Or then again, maybe he wasn't, maybe time was
limited. Okay, but remember this also, John Eversoll told me that he
had a hobby. Can you imagine what it was? Oh? Boy,
I'm gonna guess liked who write crime mysteries. Okay, so he liked to
write crime mysteries. Did did he happen to focus on forensics or medical evidence
in his crime I've never actually seen them, and that would be a good
project for one of us to look up. Can we actually locate any of
these crime mysteries by John Everson? I've never tried to do that. You
know, they might exist. We might peeled on earth the I mean,
I've seen people read you know, e Howard Hunt's spy novels. Why not
yeah, yeah, yeah, no, would have really hit it off.
Well, there you go. It could have been you know, spy novel
and then continue it in the you know, in the civil world when it
comes back and he does a true crime thing the aftermath of the spy novel,
so to speak, or maybe that would be the cleanup effort after.
I don't want to get publisher's ideas here, but the thing is, yeah,
interesting the guy wanted to write true crime or did write true crime.
Yeah, I think that would be something good to dig up. You're right,
So I want to try and move forward here only because I don't want
to keep you too long tonight, and we could do this for hours on
end because there is so much material in here, and even just trying to
stick to the stuff that you pointed to. Let's see if we can go
through a couple of things quickly to get people a hint of what it is
they can discover in this volume, because I love explaining all the points and
counterpoints and all that, but I'd like to give them kind of like a
rapid fire hint about some of the stuff going on, if you don't mind,
and move through a little quicker here in the next twenty minutes or so
to give him a real taste, because frankly, I want them to buy
the book. There's no way I can condense even a tenth of this information
into an hour podcast. Okay, we should also add, Chuck that the
book is available on Kindle for less than ten dollars. Oh for those who
do don't want to spend the big bucks for the hardcover. But I strongly
recommend the hardcover for serious students. Oh yeah, because the quality of the
image is is so good. No, and look, if you can get
it on Kindle for ten bucks, I mean I get both. Actually,
is the best way to go. This is one of those times I wouldn't
necessarily recommend the audiobook, even though I usually do, but this is more
of a visual thing, and I'll make sure to put the Lincoln there for
the kindle or ebook version of this, especially if it's only ten bucks.
But even at the higher price that you see on the hardcover book, it
is, uh, it's worth it. Okay. I'm just telling you,
guys, and I'm not saying this just because doctor Manti's here. I'm telling
you it's worth it because you know, I'm more than happy to tell you
when it's not worth your money to spend it on somebody's book. This is
okay, I guarantee it. Even if, again, even if you want
to argue with some of what you just heard from doctor Mantick and say,
well, you know, because ever saw blah blah blah, listen, the
resources in here alone are worth a whole lot more than any of that argument
you could have. Plus it's not like he's making poor arguments here, all
right. These are very reasonable, very well laid out things where he's explaining
it to you step by step and using the show and tell method. Here.
Okay, look, here's the image here's what this looks like. Here's
what it should look like. Etcetera, etcetera. As you said, I
mean you put in the tea on an anonymous patient to show people with that
would look like. So that this isn't you know, well, that's just
some odd anomaly there. No, let me show you what that anomaly would
look like. Okay, so this is great anyway, so we could move
quickly through a couple of things here. I would like to move on even
though we're still dealing with the head wound here. The immaculate, freshly washed
hair versus bloody shirt is how you titled this graphic here, all right,
so go ahead tell us about this. So, the official autopsy photographs of
the back of the head seemed to show that JFK's hair had just been freshly
washed so that it would be presentable, but the pathologists denied that there was
any washing, so did James Jenkins and his assistants at the autopsy table.
That would make no sense. Why would you destroy evidence by washing the hair?
Yeah, there it is. By the way, that's not how the
Parkland doctors remembered it at all. There's a spot in the image you probably
cannot see it on this resolution, but you can in the book, and
that red spot was chosen by the House of that committee as the entry point
for the Postier bully. But the path of the personnel at Parkland did not
ever see such a red spot. They denied that this image looked at all
like what they saw in Parkland. Now, the reason I've shown these three
images side by side is to show what a paradox this is. There's virtually
no blood on the hair, but yet if you look at the shirt,
which is the center image, you can see blood over almost the entire upper
half of JFK's shirt. Where did all that blood come from if his hair
is so clean? Well, there was a back wound, remember there was
a shallow back wound. But how the blood. There wasn't much blood at
all from the back wound, to be honest. But even if there were,
how would it get up into the collar and into the left shoulder and
over to the right side. That's absurd. This blood came from the head
wound, obviously, but it's not consistent with the cleanly washed looking hair.
Well. Yeah, this third image or two, which is important. Let
me just finish this and then we'll talk about it and zapruder frame three one
seven. You can see where there purports to be a wound in JFK's head
and it's in front of his right ear. How does the wound in front
of his right ear produce enough blood to soak the almost the entire back of
his shirt. That's crazy too, Go ahead, okay, well, look
one thing I could say, and I just want to throw this in as
a question, and I would need another type of forensic expert to clarify this.
But because Kennedy winds up lying on his back at certain points, the
idea that blood ended up on the shirt, I'm not so impressed by that.
But I will tell you that I am moved by the fact that the
funeral home people. You know, there were guys that were brought in and
it was their business to prepare him to be presentable if an open casket was
allowed to proceed. And you know, it doesn't quite line up with the
images what these guys professionally took note of because they had to contend with the
different things. They literally had to do some work to sort of reconstruct the
head. And I happened to be familiar with some of the work not necessarily
in this case, that you would do in any case where you have to
set the eyes a certain way. There's a lot of work that goes into
making someone presentable for you know, being publicly displayed in a casket. Okay
and sorry, but the funeral home guys don't seem to line up with most
of what we see going on here. They had to clean things up,
they had to contend with things, They had to reconstruct things a bit to
try and make them presentable. Now, Kennedy didn't have an open casket,
although Jackie visited with him according to accounts, et cetera. I think his
brother visited with him. Of course. Famously, Clint Hill says that she
had him go get scissors so that she could cut a lock of hair from
him. Right, all this, but it doesn't line up with this.
Where's the blood on the head? What's going on here? Why is everything
damp? But it's certainly not damp with blood in some cases in some images
you can see there's blood soaked in certain places, but seems like not enough
blood here, seems like some of it's been cleared away. So how do
we sort that all out? Well, we know from the other autopsy photographs
of JFK's head. There was blood in his hair. This photograph is not
even consistent with the other photographs, right, Well, that's my point.
It's also not consistent again and with the accounts of the funeral home people whose
professional job was to clean him up and get him presentable, so they would
have had to contend with all of this to make it a lot more presentable.
So there's problems there as well. Anyway, the next image ab that
I wanted to focus on, just real fast again, just going across these
things quickly. Let's see three successful headshots, as first proposed by Doug Horn.
Now I understand and a lot of people have been inspired by Doug Horn's
work. This is an illustration here. Could you tell us about this illustration?
Well, JFK was hit from the front by two bullets. One was
high in the right forehead, and this was obscured by his hair for the
most part, which was why very few observers at Parkland Hospital recalled it,
but Charles Crenshaw did, and he went on TV later on to point to
this area. We also know that the X rays show tiny metal fragments at
this site. Going from that site, backward in the skull, so it's
totally consistent with the X rays. Now, the second shot to the skull
from the front is just in front of the right ear, and we know
that this occurred based on witnesses in Dealing Plaza and witnesses at Parkland and witnesses
at the autopsy. James Jenkins saw this, and James Jenkins says that Pierre's
think one of the pathologists also saw it. So we have witnesses at least
three different locations who saw a bullet entry hole in front of the right ear.
James Jenkins described it as quite small, fitting with a bullet, and
the periphery was gray, which suggests bullet wipe was left there. The third
head shot was from the back and that hit him low in the right occifift.
That's the only one that was officially recognized by the Warrant Commission, or
by the Clark Flannel or by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. All government
investigations totally ignored the two frontel shots to the skull. And this is you
know, in more than one place we find guess what two different And I
think this might be missed by some listeners. Even the more experienced ones.
Did you just hear that? David Mantick said, two different directions of trajectory
are involved here. Did you hear that part? Guys? Cuz you know,
it seems like it gets missed. It's not out there a lot.
But somebody says, you know what, there is physical evidence, There is
forensic evidence to show that. Guess what, there's more than one direction.
What does that mean? Well, for the most basic idea here, you
can't have a loan nut who's shooting from two completely different directions several hundred feet
away in the span of a couple of seconds. But you can have two
loan nuts doing it. As The New York Times proposed, I always love
that two lone nuts record suggested that maybe they were two loan nuts who were
not acting together, who manages to pull this off. It happens all the
time, doctor mantic I mean, don't you know two guys independently often decide
to rob the same bank on the same day, at the same moment.
Don't you know that? I mean, it happens all the time. Probably
twins, well they're twins, or they're connected, you know, in alternate
universes, and they happen to be on the wrong timeline. And yeah,
I'm talking science fiction, and uh no, I'm not a fan of the
Stephen King book on the Assassination, but hey, it makes sense in that
world, I guess, doctor Mantick, what do you say? Yeah,
we have to choose what universe we live in, don't we, Chuck,
I suppose I only know the one that I've lived in for eighty three years.
I know what I recognize. I've been here for fifty two. But
still I think we recognize about the same plane of reality. But it doesn't
work like that. Two loan do you understand? You know how difficult it
is to win the lottery? Not you, doctor Mantick, but how difficult
it is to win the lottery? Right? You got to get struck by
lightning twice in the space of a year. No, of course not No,
that's that's taxation for dumb people. But the thing is that it's real
simple though. You got to basically beat the odds of getting struck by lightning
twice in the same month. And if you can do that, you know,
more power to you go play the lottery. But otherwise, the chances
of two loan nuts showing up at the same location to commit the same assassination.
I mean, in all, how do you even publish that with a
straight face. I'm sorry, I'm wasting time. I should be just talking
to you about real things here. My apologies was the New York Times.
Yeah, yeah, sorry again, I know it's a sort of a waste
of time, But consider that for a moment when people tell you about how
the legitimate New York Times, you know, came out with this supposition about
something or other, and then remember how often they get their quotes straight and
all that too. Anyway, I was showing you the cover of the book
once again, But let's go back to some of these photographs, because again,
I know my time with you is limited and I want to give people
just a taste here. Now, this one is one of the quite honestly,
used to disturb me when I was younger. But it's one of the
you know, the very clear facial pictures. Right, it's not the stare
of death picture exactly. There's another one they called the stare of Death picture.
But this is him on his back. And I've seen this in color
and black and white elsewhere. But what are we looking at here? Okay,
Boswell, there's a quote here here an incised wound. That's an interesting
phrase. That's the end of the quote there, and your caption reads the
incision was not seen in Dallas. So who did this? What are you
talking about in this image? Docu mantic, Well, this is where one
of the frontal shots came in high in the right forehead. But this bullet
entry site has been obscured by a scalpel incision. Scalpels in size bullets cause
wounds. We have two things going on here at once. And Boswell,
one of the pathologists has essentially admitted that an incision, presumably by a scalpel,
was made through a bullet wound exactly at this site. No one saw
this incision in Parkland. This photograph was supposedly taken before any work was done
on JFK at the autopsy. So how did this incision appear on JFK's head
between Parkland and the autopsy. If nobody did it in Parkland and nobody did
it at the autopsy, well obviously somebody did it purposefully in order to obscure
the wound. You know, I once tried to explain the difference between an
incision and a wound which would be caused by a projectile in a certain way.
And I was corrected a little bit, but I was partially correct.
Here's the thing. If you have a wound caused by a bullet, literally
flesh, skin, all of the involved materials that are struck end up stretching
and being distorted and tearing in generally speaking, imperfect ways. You know,
you don't get lack you know, you don't get clear, exactly concise lines
in what you see visually in the wound afterwards that is created by a straight
edge. And what you said is an incision. Would that be the market
difference between making a hole with a bullet or making a tear in the skin
with a bullet and making one with a scalpel. Would that be the way
to note it or what? Yeah, Chuck, Chuck, that's very good.
I just want to emphasize though, that this is where the bullet fragments
are seen on the X ray, so we have confirmation on the X ray
that this is where a bullet entered. So you have confirmation on an X
ray, which means that even though there's some bizarre things on the X rays,
what you're telling me is they took probably a legitimate X ray and it
was altered. It's not a complete fabrication from start to finish. They probably
started with a legitimate article here and then altered it. Is that correct?
Yeah, the X ray is mostly authentic, and we know exactly where they
altered it and why they altered it. We pretty well just stand all of
that. So most of the X ray is real. Okay. I just
want to clarify that because sometimes people say, oh, you're saying everything's fake,
but then you're saying the X ray has this in it. I just
want to clarify that right in the moment. So that's a very important point.
Thank you Chuck for that. But we we can sort this out.
We know what's real and what's fake. There you go. So I wanted
to make that point. Now we have another image coming up here, and
I might have skipped one, but let's get to it. On page one
twenty two and twenty three, one two and one twenty three. There's a
few justy three has the color image we want to focus on. Okay,
so I'll go to one twenty three and there's multiple images here, just saying
there's a black and white illustration, and then we have some color photos here
in the bottom there's well, let's see there looks like there's four color photos
and that illustration again. And what am I looking at here, Doctor Manton,
Well, this is just further proof that there was indeed a bullet entry
high in JFK's right forehead. We have not only the X rays to prove
that, but we have Malcolm killed Uff in the upper left here. He
was the acting press secretary at the press conference that afternoon and he said it
was a simple matter, according to doctor Berkeley, bullet through the head,
and he's pointing where the bullet went in. That matches the X ray and
the photographs we've seen. Dennis David saw photographs immediately after the autopsy, and
he appears in two of these images pointing to the same site. And then
there's Charles Crenshaw who was at He was in trauma room one and he knows
where that bullet entry was. And then the artist's sketch is fascinating, right.
This is based on recollections of what purported to be on a authentic autopsy
X ray that's consistent with the date of JFK's autopsy and Quentin Schwinn is the
source of this information, as I discussed in the book, But in that
particular image that he saw in Rochester, New York, this is what he
recalled. It actually showed the bullet entry wound there before the incision was made.
Of course, that that photograph is no longer in the set, it
could not possibly still be there. That had to be destroyed, but somehow
an original survived and Quentin Schwinn saw it some decades after the assassination in Rochester,
New York, which is the home of Kodak, who produced all the
photographic and X ray film for the autopsy. Well, look, before we
get get too far lost in anything, and I don't want to you know,
I don't want to take up too much of your time because I've already
had you for near an hour now discussing all this. But I have a
question for you that's sort of outside of the book, and though you might
address it in here. What are the chances in your mind that the evidence
could still exist somewhere untampered with that would actually reveal a whole lot of details,
clear up all the mysteries, reveal the fact that things were tampered with,
What are the chances that maybe a private collector or you know, in
the deep dark vaults of some you know, alphabet agency somewhere, the photographic,
the X ray, the autopsy stuff, the medical evidence exists intact in
a collection or maybe in pieces, or ended up in somebody souvenir collection in
the back of somebody's closet somewhere. What do you think of that? Is
that a possible disability? Do you think we could discover that somewhere along the
line? Is that? Is there potential for that at all? Or do
you believe it was all destroyed? This is obviously your opinion and your supposition,
but I'm curious, Well, there are fairly reliable stories of a burn
party where selected photographs and X rays were destroyed deliberately. If that story is
true, then the chances are very low. On the other hand, for
the Zapruder film, I think there is a chance that something still exists.
There are reports from William Raymond who saw the supposedly original Zupruidier film shown to
him by French intelligence. Goodness knows where that is. We also have reports
from secret service agents who saw a different film, and four or five civilians
some of whom I know and you may know, who purport to have seen
a different Zupruder film and they agree with each other amazingly enough. But they
disagree with the current film in the National Archives. So there may be a
difference of Pruder film still out there somewhere. Who knows. So the possibility
for some of the evidence to still exist, you believe is true. But
you also take into account that there may have been a get together to destroy
evidence all at once, kind of a burn party. Yeah. Harry Livingston
describes this in one of his books. He specifically describes the burn party,
and he says where he got this evidence Off the top of my head,
recall his source at the moment, but you can read about it in his
books. Yes. Now, unfortunately and fortunately simultaneously, I knew Harry a
little bit, and you know, depending on what was going on at the
time, some things might have been hyperbole, some thing's not. You know,
it's little difficult to parse out with him. But I don't discount it
either. Oh, we know that X rays have disappeared. Both Gerald Custer
the X ray tech and John Ebersol the radiologists, quite affirm quite strongly affirmed
that they did at least five skull X rays. They told me this independently.
They had not communicated with each other, but independently, each of these
two men told me that there were at least five skull X rays taken,
including tangential X rays. Today there are only three X rays, no tangential
X rays. So I'm quite convinced that some X rays have disappeared. Well,
if the parent is telling the truth or not, I don't think that's
terribly important. But we're pretty sure, pretty darn sure, that two skull
X rays have disappeared. Well, the next thing I was going to say
to you is, isn't it kind of strange that there is such a low
number of X rays that exist in the collection as it is? It seems
inconsistent with reality based on well, sorry, the collective testimony of people talking
about Rebe and Cust running back and forth developing X rays sounds to me like
they ran back. There were three trips. I suspect it was like three
trips from the IPS suite up to one of the top floors at the Bethesda
National Archives where the film processor was located. So I then elevator trips with
a turnaround time of many minutes. Yeah, you're right. That's a strong
argument that there were multiple sequences of skull X rays taken. I find that
very believable. And now they have three images today. That doesn't make sense.
And if you were a radiologist doing the job that is alleged to have
been done there, you're not going to make one X ray and send it
along. I don't think. I think you're going to take several sets.
Yeah, you're going to take several, right, for lack of a better
term, and then you're going to send it on. It's okay, go
develop these it should be. And how many exist in the collection? Now?
Only three are there today? And Gerald Cuss told the a r RB
that he took tangential X rays. That's in his deposition and it's reported here
in my book as well. I believe him. But we don't have any
tangential X rays today, right, So if they existed, they would blow
the whole thing sky high. They couldn't allow that, right, I mean.
And besides that, the more detail they give you, the more mistakes
could be made, Like the bonehead issue. You really want to minimize the
evidence otherwise you get caught out there, you go. So, do we
have time to maybe cover the Harper fragment really quickly here, or let's just
do that maybe as a last I think that would be the nice punctuation on
this discussion. Right, that's an important issue, right, So let's first
introduce people to the Harper fragment, just really quickly, like sixty second explanation.
What in the world is the Harper fragment in general? Doctor Mantick.
This is a piece of bone about the size of a baseball overall, that
was found in Dealey Plaza, not the day of the assassination, but during
that weekend by Billy Hawker, who was a pre medical student at the time.
Yeah. Unfortunately, his career apparently was aborted. But his uncle was
a pathologist at the Methodist Hospital. So when he found this, he took
it to his uncle, and his uncle showed it to two other pathologists.
I've actually spoken to one of these three people during a radio interview and in
the images that appear in my book and which you probably can see here even
with the video. Age two sixty three is the one we want to look
at. Oh I had to eighty three, sorry, Okay, to sixty
three yeah, you were showing the X ray, but the photograph will be
a little more. Sorry, here you go, this one representative. Yeah,
so these are or color images of the parparate fragment taken from the front
and from the back, or if you like, from the exterior and from
the interior. And what's key here is shown by the red arrow. There
is a smear, metallic smear at the red arrow, and we know it's
metallic because on the X ray we can see that it's metal. It's most
likely led from a bullet. And the key point is simple, it's on
the outside. So this represents a bullet coming from the back of JFK's head,
striking him low on the right side of his occipital area. Now,
in Tink Thompson's book Last Second in Dallas, he presents a scenario in which
the frontal bullet comes in first and only later the posterier bullet comes in.
But that is simply impossible because then there's no chance to deposit the lead smear.
In order to deposit the lead smear, the bullet from the back has
to come in first. So that totally destroys Tink's scenario, and he never
really addresses this, he doesn't seem to know anything about the Harper fragment.
So that's a very central theme in my critique of Tank Thompson's book, because
if you accept my argument, and it's basically unavoidable, then Thompson's whole timeline
sequence for shots gets blown to pieces. But there are indeed a shot from
the front and a shot from the rear. It's just that if you try
and line it up with his metal smear, it's got to come from outside
of the rear of the head because when you said the occipital area. For
people that don't know that, if you feel on the back of your head,
there's a little bump there right like toward the bottom of the back of
your first shot as the first shot, it has to be because the depositor
right and the come later, right, So the metal smere is deposited in
such a way that that projectile has to have struck from outside of the rear
of the head, right, probably from the Texas school book Depository possibly possibly,
very likely, Yeah, but for that but it fits really well better
than any other source, right, I mean, and believe it or not,
that does line up with a trajectory that makes a little bit of sense.
Now, did it come from the sixth floor or elsewhere? Another story,
But that general area, that's not a bad general area for the rear
shot to have come from. Now, the frontal shots another issue and something
that I know you address in the book, and you address a whole lot
of other things in this book, and I want to kind of wrap it
up with that. But what else do we need to know about the Harper
property. Let me make a correction here. I show that I said Texas
School Book Depository. That's wrong. It came from the Dale Text Building,
which was directly up the street, not the Texas School. Well that's that's
the sister building right behind it. But if you take a look at the
trajectory cone, you could still put it from the other side of the street.
Yeah, so I have to correct that. So here was probably deposited
by a gunman shooting from the Dale Text Building, which was directly up the
street. Yeah, but potentially you could put it in the Texas school Book
Depository. Still if you take a look at you know, there's still the
possibility. It's a harder match, but it's still there. And I looked
at oh Man, the guy, did hear no evil? Oh? Don
Thomas? Don Thomas right. Taking a look at his work, I can
see the possibility of the dal text building or the school book depository. Still
not putting the gun in Oswald's hand, by the way, but still saying
it's a possibility. And also you have the you know, the shot from
the nole and all this kind of stuff. And if you order the data
anyway, that's another issue for another day. And I would love to talk
to doctor Thomas on here about it, but anyway, that's probably not going
to occur. But I'm really happy to have sat down and discussed this with
you the Harper Pragnizer. Nice questions, Chuck, excellent job. I really
appreciate it, and I wish we had time for more. As a matter
of fact, maybe we'll do yet another one, because I mean, we
have things coming up in November. I definitely want to discuss this more with
you. Well, we do. Your readers will want to prepare an advance
by buying either the hardcover or the kindle version. Yeah, definitely, and
I highly recommend both things. I always recommend the physical book because I prefer
them, and like I said, I like having a reference material. But
you know what, some people might enjoy it better on their desktop and might
want the Kindle version, which is a little more economical, but you're not
going to get the same quality. I'm sorry when you look at it,
because it can. It's substitutes for an index need to search on things in
Kindle and I have both because I like to search on things right well,
but both of them have their uses. I think that you'd my recommendation,
get both. The images are much cleaner and everything else. If you have
the physical book, okay, which I highly recommend. I'm holding it up
here. I don't know if the camera's catching it. Look the blind guy
operating the camera. It's fun, okay, so you know, excuses,
excuses, but there it is. There's the book. I'm holding it in
my hand, and I've also put up the graphic for the image, and
just to make sure I read it correctly, the title is the jfk Assassination
Decoded Criminal Forgery in the Autopsy Photographs and X rays, Okay, and that
is by doctor David W. I always forget your middle initial W. Mantick,
MDPHD. And once again I highly recommend it and hope you guys learned
a whole lot from this discussion tonight, and thank you doctor Mantick for and
the time to do this with us. Thank you so much, Chuck for
your good work. Keep it up. And for you guys, stick around
on the live stream. I'll be time. This is James Corbet at Qorterreport
dot com and you were listening to the o'celly affected o'ceelley dot com. The
War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put
the Kennedy presidency in the context of the times and reveals never before published information
about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he
had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context
of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state. Before World
War II, the United States was a continental republic. In the decade that
followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only
wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the
island arn't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile
launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World War, and they
wanted to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why
and will show you what President Kennedy was up against. For more information,
The Wars State dot com dot com Radio in Denial The Secret Wars with Air
Strikes and Tanks by Larryhancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations
and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many
of them, using new files. It exposes things about the Bay and Pigs
that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed
and why the United States did not learn from it. It also shows why
other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
that puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial, Secret
Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks Larryhancock. For more information, go to Larry
hyphen Hancock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
com in digital or physical, oh Chilly dot com. Do you like history,
real history that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War,
Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events that led up to
this Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen
forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at Amazon dot com.
Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson Revelation through conversation