View. Chili Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like you Now and Now aggervated and in all media tat April fourth, twenty twenty four. Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, this is the o'celly effect. And you're hearing us live if you tuned in almost an hour late, because take two I did a whole big intro and then I turned to my guest, who I'm really excited to have on, and yeah, his audio wasn't working, so we had to straighten that out. And
now it's almost an hour later. But whatever, we're gonna get this done. Have to take the time. This is not a throwaway. Guess this is not somebody well, I guess I'll have them on. This is somebody who I'm surprised I haven't made an effort to get on before because I've always appreciated his work. I mean, well always, what do I mean A couple decades now. I've appreciated his work mostly I've seen public presentations. He was in The Men Who Killed Kennedy. He's been you know, referenced in
different documentaries and things like that. He's been part of collective works where you know, he has a section on certain things, and he is a doctor in more than one way MD and PhD. You know, so you got the medical side of it for a reason, which will become relevant shortly in the discussion. And also a physicist, which I find interesting. I think that's what his PhD is in. I'm going to ask him about that, along with many other things. What are we here to talk about specifically though?
The latest book, the Final Analysis, okay, which has a picture of a subruter frame and a representation of might be an enhanced skull X ray photograph based called x ray. But anyway, that's on the front of the book. It's got a black and a green stripe which is obviously the grass from the subruter background in the imagery on the front of the book, the
Final Analysis, and it is co authored by Jerome Corsi. Interesting there, But doctor David Mantick, now before I even go into this book, want to just give a special note here because amazing book I have in my hand here which I was unaware of, and I usually keep myself, you know, up to date on literature when it comes to the JFK case, you know, stop counting after I read three hundred books, and you know the reason was that a lot of them didn't really count after the three hundred.
But anyway, an amazingly well put together book which has had more than one name, and is I already know even though I haven't finished it is already a reference material. Okay, So I would suggest not only the book we're going to talk about tonight, but in the future I'm going to try and convince them to come back and talk about this really really useful, educational and solid book, which is JFK Assassination Decoded. Now I'm not going to say
that name again because I don't want you to get confused. We're going to talk about the final Analysis, which, by the way, I'm sure there's gonna be a little bit of a crossover relating to material here, but somehow I think you're gonna want to own both once you read either one. So anyway, David Mantick, I haven't had him on before, so this is going to be different, really happy, and here we go. Take two. David again, I haven't seen you except for on my screen right now.
I haven't seen you in person since two thousand and three. Oh wait a minute, I missed you that day because I only went to the conference the one day and it wasn't your day. So how are you tonight, doctor Mantick. Well, I'm doing fine. I'm living in Paradise, home of Gerald Ford, Frank Sinatra, and Bob Hope. I'm looking out at snow covered mountains and birds swimming happily on our pond, the sun shining, the sky is blue. So I just got out of the pool, the
swimming pool myself. So everything is great. Wow, Paradise, California. Yes, but it's called officially Rancho Mirage. Okay, well, question about that. You know there was a devastating fire in that area a couple of years ago, was your Were you living there then? Well, yes, we've been living here for well over thirty years. But the desert doesn't have enough trees to sustain a fire, so we will disappoint you on that score.
Ah Okay, well you know, but then again, every time I turn around for a couple of years there it seemed like California was on fire for three years. But anyway, we're not here to discuss that tonight. Again. I'm super pleased and I want to talk to you about this book. And the first thing I want to ask you about directly is, well, I guess the title the Final Analysis. Does this mean we're not going
to see any more publications from you? You're done with your research. A lot of guys I've known over the years have said, whether they meant it or not, was another thing to be seen, but have said this is it. You know, Mark Lane put out the last Word, sent me a nice letter, you know, around that time when you put that out. Walt Brown said, when I did that massive chronology, I'm done. He's published a couple of books since then. You know, does this mean
done? Has published several dozen fiction books since then, and included me in several of them, including his forthcoming one in June. I was wondering if that was gonna come up. Were you in the Mickey Mantle one? Were you in that one too? Or I believe so? Okay, so these are side stories, but that's great. I did not know that you were included in those books, you know, because I'm only glanced at them. I mean, I'm still working on reading the Chronology thirty thousand pages, right,
But it's a joke. I have gone through it all now, but it took me a while you know, I got it on CD a while ago. Anyway, that's not the point. We're not here to talk about Walt, although shout out to you Dr Brown too, thank you for that, no problem. But the final analysis, are you done? I mean, do you think that this is everything that you're gonna have to say or
is there still more stones to be overturned for you? I look at myself now as being in semi retirement insofar as the JFK work is concerned, but I've started work on another book which is not directly related to the JFK business. Okay, well, look, I mean I'd love to see what else you decide to write, and uh, you know, interesting choice of co author Jerome Corsi. And you know, like I said, I also want to in the future, I really do want to talk to you about this
other really really excellent piece of work. And not saying that this one that we're talking about tonight is bad, but this other one is remarkable in format, style, everything, even illustration color illustrations, which the current book that's a really have. Yes, the current book is the illustrations are black and white, that's true. But look, I mean, you know the printing
cost anymore? I understand, you know, I mean, like the why is it that Bob wants You know, Bob Roden wants a hundred bucks for a book because it costs so much to print a thousand pictures in it kind of means that you need to spend that much to get that book out. Anyway, back to back to you again the final analysis. All right, so do we have a solution in this book? Am I am? I jumping ahead to the end sometimes do you have a solution to the crime?
Or what do you mean by the final analysis? I'm stuck on the title. Still, Well, those three words are actually taken from several of JFK's press conferences, where he often wrapped up the interview by saying, in the final analysis, this is how it stands. So it's a direct quote from many of his press conferences. Yes, well, I mean, and I
recognize that as well. Oh that's very good, because not everyone does know a lot of people, as a matter of fact, inadvertently, a lot of people without realizing it, I believe consciously that are constantly reading material related to President Kennedy wind up using that phrase. Actually in the final analysis, I hear it in conversations, and I recognize and go, you know what this is. You've been exposed to so many of his speeches, yes,
and various other things. I mean, you know, if you're like me, you listen to the private tapes and you've gone through you know, dictations. I told you a little story about a dictation that I actually re recorded for a presentation before we went live here. But anyway, he uses that
phrase all the time. That's one of his phrases. And I notice again that if people are researching him, either for the purposes of the assassination or otherwise, you know, there's other reasons to research President Kennedy, they might start using that phrase because they're so often exposed to it. So no,
it makes perfect sense to me that that's what it means. But it could have several meanings, right, I mean, that's sure the nature of you know, alliteration, reference, sub reference, and homage when it comes to titling something. So anyway, so we begin with the title, but let's get into the purpose of it. What inspired the creation of this book after you had put out this other fairly substantial I mean, this is not a
thin book, you know, this other one before. It seems like you put out a very large amount of material, very carefully and thoughtfully assembled. I mean, what inspired you to do the final analysis? So soon after that book, well, Jerry Corsi proposed that we do a book really more intended for the lay public. That was not the purpose of the previous book. Previous book was designed for the cognate, sent to you, the people
who knew a lot of things about the case. But this book is more of my story, my personal story of how I got into this and what steps I took to do the measurements at the archives. And I even brought my five year old and six year my five and seven year old into the story. So it's a little more personal, and it is written at a lay public level rather than as a textbook. So this was Jerry's idea, and of course I understood that my previous book wasn't really designed for the lay
public. That was never my intention. So I totally agreed with his assessment that we needed something for the lay public. I think we've known that for a long time, right, and every few years there needs to be a new one. Indeed, because Jfkane, The Unspeakable was like this, It was a good introduction book. Jim Douglas did a very good job on that one, and that was very accessible to the uninitiated. Let's say this other
one is definitely more for if you're familiar with the the minutia already. Let's expound upon that and that makes sense. So okay, that's the reason for it. But let's get into that story, that personal story a little bit.
Should we begin with the National Archives and a little problem you had going in there to go and get permission to examine certain materials, or should we begin with the you had a little bit of a visual issue which I can sympathize with, empathize with going in Where should we begin with this story to give people a taste of it, not the whole thing, because we want to buy the book were good? We could begin at the breakfast table when
my children were five years old and seven years old. And since I'm director of Radiation Oncology, I don't have a lot of spare time. So there I am at the breakfast table looking at the X ray images as printed in David Lifton's book, and I keeping at this apparent cross section of a bullet inside of JFK's right eye socket, and I said to myself, you know, this is so obvious. There's no way they could have missed it.
But they did miss it. Nobody saw it at the autopsy. There were dozens of people looking at the X rays, which are up on a public view box. Nobody saw it, Nobody ever discussed it, And when the pathologists were asked about it during the RB in the nineteen nineties, they each one independently denied ever seeing anything like that. So how is it possible that this thing pops up in the X rays years later but wasn't there originally?
Well, really quickly, let's describe that scene. Right, Gerald Custer and I think the other guy's name was Reid were being run back and forth by the doctor who was in charge of the X rays, you know, constantly, go develop this, bring it back, go develop, bring it back. And in fact, if you look at this stuff at the National Archives, you can see pencil marks on it and stuff like that from where it's
allegedly being pointed to and exhibited here for the doctors to see. And they're having the doctor who is in charge of the X rays I'm using Layman's terms here point to the other doctors. This is what I see because it's an area of expertise to be focused on the X rays. Right, So there's a whole other doctor they're interpreting to the three you know autopsy doctors, right, Fink, Boswell and Humes. Look, here's what we see in this X ray. Here's what we see from this side, here's what we can
find. And allegedly this is them looking for bullets. And meanwhile, there's this obvious object in the X ray that they should have been looking for during this whole event, right, but they missed it. So I said to myself at the breakfast table, how obvious is this? I wonder if my seven year old could spot this right away? So I said, Chris, come over here, look at this picture. Can you find the bullet? And he looked at it and he said, yeah, is that it?
He pointed right at it. So my seven year old, who I had not really trained in radiology, he had no trouble seeing it. But nobody could see it at the autopsy. So I decided to take it one step further. My daughter, who's only five years old, was sitting across the table didn't see what we were doing. So I said to her, mereth, come over here, can you find it? So she marched around the table and she looked at it, and she looked at me and she said,
well, what's it supposed to look like? And I said, well, it's white, and she said, oh, there it is. So my five year old, who also had no radiology training, had no trouble finding this. But we're supposed to believe that three pathologists and dozens of people there and one radiologist could not see this. So I had the chance on the telephone a few years later to ask the radiologist, John Eversaw about that thing. I said, well, there's a six point five millimeter a parent
cross section of a bullet there. Can you tell me whether you saw that on the X rays that night? And just like that, our whole conversation totally stopped. He never said another word about the Kennedy assassination. So up to that point, you're having a friendly conversation with somebody. I was on for about fifteen minutes. And of course the transcripts in one of James Fetzer's books you can read it might be an assassination science. I think I think
it's in Murder and Daily Plaza. Oh, Murder and Daily Plaza. Okay, I stand corrected, but I do know. Yeah, that transcript is in one of those two books. And there you go. I mean, this is a guy who you could have a friendly conversation with anyway, because you're eat in my specialty. For God's sake, of course, that's my point. He's in your field, your specialized my field of radiation oncology. But that night he was playing the role of a diagnostic radiologist. He was
the only one who was there. Well, because obviously that's better than no expertise, and what are you going to do rely on texts? Sure? No, but okay, so yeah, and the conversation stopped, so obviously there had to be something to this. The curious thing is that during our conversation he told me that he liked to write mystery stories. Really, yes, that was his hobby. Yeah, maybe maybe him and I Howard Hunt could have gotten together. I mean, he likes spy novels. How about
a spy Yeah. I think the git it off very well. So okay, sorry, I sometimes make piece of sides. It's fun, but but let's get back to the seriousness here. So in your field, you see something and also you can demonstrate it by having a five year old basically play, you know, the game that some of us grew up with on Sesame Street. They used to do this thing. I'm in my fifties. I'm
going to be fifty two on Sunday, you know. So Sesame Street used to have this game called which one of these things doesn't go with the other? If you see something out of place here in the X ray, I mean, that's the point of what was going on there that night. Let's find the objects. Let's find the foreign objects here in the X ray. Right, So, all right, that's part of what's supposed to be going on. You talked to eversall, so we started at the kitchen table.
Where do you go from there with this? Well, I knew then that I had to go to the archives to do some serious work with this. Okay, so you can come to my training in radiation oncology. I knew about optical density, which is just a very simple technique of measuring the transmission
of light through X rays at a given point. So if an object is looking white like this cross section, it'll transmit a lot of light and you can actually effectively measure or calculate how long this object is from front to back, and we're looking from the front on the front of JFKX ray, so
we could calculate pretty closely how long this would be. And I could compare my measurements, for example, to the optical density of all the mercury silver amalgams that Kennedy had, and he had more than four on each side. So it turned out, if you believe these measurements, which have been confirmed by Mike Chesser, this so called cross section was longer from front to back than all of those mercury amalgams lined up in a row. H that's preposterous.
Well, that's a ridiculously long projectile. Yeah yeah, but what was even worse You couldn't you couldn't see it on the lateral X ray. So how is it possible for a piece of metal that long not to show up on the lateral X ray. That's ridiculous. That's not the universe I live in. My only guess would be moon Rock, I don't know, you know, yeah, maybe off world, because it doesn't make sense when you're talking about what you're saying is that each one of these, a different type
of metal has a different density obviously, right. Sure, So if you're dealing with silver, that's one thing. If you're dealing with lead, that as yet another thing. Lead I do believe is more dense than silver. Again, I don't claim to be a scientist, but just you know basics here. Mercury is very dense mercury, and that's that's what was in the dental amalcoms with silver. Okay, and yet this thing is more dense than the mercury. Yeah, it's effectively longer from front to back than all of
those mercury silver amalgams lined up in a row. So it should have been flagrantly obvious on the lateral X ray. But yeah, it's not there. So one would have to posit that either the object was removed in between X rays or it was put in place, depending on the order of the X rays. Well, we actually have comments from the technologist about that, Okay. They said that they took the let me see if I get this right, they took the lateral X ray first, as I recall, so it
should have been on there, but it's not right. So given that the lateral X ray went first, that means that the only thing that one could surmise here is that an object was placed in there after the lateral X ray. Yeah, you have to have this crazy scenario where somebody sneaks in between these two X rays and puts this object on Jf's case skull somewhere. Wow. Okay, right, that's that's how ridiculous this is. That that is across the world I live in. Well, and it doesn't make sense,
like there's no benign explanation for that. Like you know, for instance, there's this practice I I read about at one point where these guys would put a metal object in an X ray on purpose, uh, in order so that they had a point of measurement like that on JFK's X rays. Right, okay, so that's not what we're talking about. They did do that, but it's totally unrelated to the issue I'm talking about with that cross section in JFK's right, I thought, right, right, so what do you
what do you come up with that that? What? What is your Obviously this object was added later, right, added later, So that's why nobody saw it that night. So you have a post operation on the X ray, okay, yes, And we have pencil lines on the X ray which still already alluded to. These were placed by John Eversall by his own admission, when he later in early December examined these same X rays at the White
House. He was specifically called there to look at the X rays, and while he was there, he drew a pencil line on the X rays. And I saw that pencil line. It's only on one side of the X ray, so that has to be the original. It's not on the other side, so that this is the original. This is what John Eversall did. Well, So you whoever put that object on that X ray did it between the autopsy and Eversall's visit, and so it happened within a few weeks
after the autopsy. We know that, okay, And again you know this is kind of astounding. What does this mean. It means that clearly evidence has been tampered with. In my mind, you had to get permission in order to view the original, the original articles here, the original you know X rays at the archives, right. You had to go through that process as well. I had to apply to Burke Marshall, who was then the
Kennedy family attorney, and he took his good time thinking about this. I suppose he investigated me, but it took him twelve months to investigate me before he finally let me in. Wow, okay, a year, Yeah, it was a whole year. Well you imagine that. I don't think it would take a year to find out that you're a doctor, You've been a notable doctor for a long time. I think they could have looked through a directory or a phone book and probably found you and verified who you were pretty
easily, even back then. What year was this, by the way, nineteen ninety three, ninety three, Okay, so you know we're not talking the Internet age. So it didn't take a couple of keystrokes on Google. But it was something that was relatively easy to do, especially for a lawyer, to find out if somebody is legitimately a doctor. And that's the whole thing, right, it's supposed to be legitimately for research purposes, that you
are a qualified person to view these things. That's allegedly the criteria, right, That's correct. And I hadn't written anything about JFK at this point, so there was nothing for him to find. He didn't know what my political views were, he didn't know anything about my views of the assassination, so there wasn't really anything to investigate. Well, I guess it takes a year to figure that out. All right, So this is the journey to the
National Archives and you find this out. But this isn't the only thing you found out examining this material at the archives, right, No, I found several other crazy, totally illogical, unphysical things, both in the photographs and in the X rays. Well, you want to give us a couple of broad strokes, obviously, not everything that's in the book, but a couple of broad strokes about what you were finding and how you were finding that, if you don't mind. So on the lateral X ray, there are two
of them. There's only one frontel, so that just gives us three extant X rays. Although the radiologists and the technologists both both told me they took more X rays than three, So obviously, if you trust their memories, both of which were given to me independently, some X rays have disappeared. So all we have now are three. So now we're going to focus on the two lateral X rays. Right, you just really quickly, all references to the X rays do not amount to there should only be three in existence.
There were many taken the folks who were there who did this. So there were five or six altogether, including oblique X rays, which would be, you know, something that I would have insisted on as the radiologist. So that makes a lot of sense. What is an oblique X ray exactly taken at an angle between the front and the side I see? Okay, I just want to, you know, clarify for people listening, what's an
oblique X ray. Okay, So we have the full frontal, we have the side view and oblique, so you have different angles that this should be the way it should be done, so you get sort of a panoramic view of say the skull just to begin with, and also the body. There should be body X rays as well, shouldn't they? There are, but we've focused mainly on the head X rays. Okay. So on the two lateral X rays on each of them, there's a surprisingly transparent area behind the
ear on both of them. There's a lateral from the right and the lateral from the left, but behind the ear on both of them, this area is very transparent in books, in prints, that is, it looks white, whiter than it should look. So I was really keen to measure these areas using optical density, and it was totally beyond anything I've ever seen in any patients. So I measured a lot of patients and duct de sills, and I measured nineteen cases that he he collected the X rays from the forensic
examiner's office and we did measurements on those too. I have never seen any area like this on any living patient, and we didn't see anything like this on those nineteen forensic cases. Well, let me just ask you an odd question here, because there's some discussion about what type of machine was used.
There was a portable X ray, a portable GE machine made in Milwaukee, right, and you know, some people have stated that the quality of the X rays might have been bad because of the nature of this machine, that really they should have utilized. They had much better X ray equipment on premises. They should have utilized that instead of this thing. Do you have any thoughts on any of that. Yeah, I've discussed this in great detail in
some of my work. I've measured the transmission, that is, the optical density through the area around the skull where there's essentially air. I've done this for the head and the chest and the abdomen and All these exposures are entirely normal ranges. There's just nothing wrong with them. That kind of talk is
just totally useless. Okay, fair enough. You know, I'm asking this question just as you know somebody who is not necessarily familiar with these things, and I'm just figuring out the people who say the opposite have done zero measurements. I've done zillions of measurements. Well, right, let's talk about that, I mean before we get into the because I want to talk about the
operation you went through here with the machine and going over this thing. Really, I guess millimeter by millimeter, you know, No, no, tenth of a millimeter, tenth of a millimeter, sorry, Mike. Grasts were taken at tens of a millimeter steps. In other words, for that cross section of a bullet, I took over sixty measurements and going from one side to the other over sixty measurements. Wow, okay, So give people idea about that. I mean, how long did it take you to do that?
By the way, well, I was there nine days all together over the years, so each time I was there is essentially a full day with just a break for lunch. So just a break for lunch and you're just taking measurements the whole time. Yeah, measurements after measurements, and collecting three notebooks just full of data. So ultimately, this is only one aspect that I mean, you've studied other aspects of this, but I mean the X
rays. You started in the place where you should, the place that you're most familiar with, right, and you go over this and I mean, what is it that you know besides this bizarre object that really shouldn't exist in the X ray but does and is for some reason not present when it should be. And then another time is present, you know, all seemingly out of order, things like this, and you know you're looking at something that
was in you know, in people's hands time. Like you said, you got a pencil mark on one side of it, which matches up with exactly what the doctor said he was doing that night. Makes sense, he's pointing at it showing things like that scene I described. What else did you discover about these original materials? And then maybe we can move into the photographs a little too. Well, we have to say a few more things about those lateral X rays. Sure, I called this area of the white patch because
that's literally what it was. It was added in the dock room, and so in print it looks like a white patch. Anything that dense because it's white, it's got to be very dense. So it's telling us that it's either a very dense bone or something like mercury that's a liquid at room temperature. That's even more ridiculous. But the optical density measurements suggest that this whole
area behind the ear is almost totally bone. So I've said that if you really believe this, you would have to say that JFK was a bonehead. But it's worse than that, because if there's a fairly large area like that that's mostly bone, then if you look at the frontal x ray, you should be able to easily see that very large area of bone behind the air. But it's not there. It's not there, so you have that's not
the world we live in. If you change the X ray from the front to the side, the bone's not going to vanish on the frontal view. It has to be there, right, the bone or lack thereof right, I mean, it's not there on the frontel. So where'd it go? Did somebody sneak in between those two films? And take out all that bone. Of course, that's ridiculous. Yeah, that and I have heard you
make that statement. You'd have to think JFK is a bonehead and what But what you mean by that is you're you're talking about an area of the skull which should be housing other things things is just entirely made of bone. Is
that? Literally? When almost almost entirely made of bone? And specifically I compared it to the area around the ear that's the petrus bone, which is the densest bone in the human body, and the measurement showed that it was almost as dense from one side to the other, left to right as the petrance bone. Is that makes no sense. There's no room. There's hardly any room left for brain in that case. Right, Well, that's that's the point, is that whole area would then there's no room for in the
cranial vault for the brain, you know. But on the frontal view, we know that there's a room for the brain, so that the two views are totally inconsistent. See, that's the thing, it's extremely inconsistent. Does the frontal view strike you as legitimate? And yeah, yeah, the frontal view strikes me as legitimate. That's JFK skull. It's also JFK skull in
the lateral. But somebody, probably John Ebersol that six point five millimeters cross section on the front X ray and then he got cute, got carried away, shouldn't have done this, but he added the white patch on the back. And the impression left is that the back is full of tissue, whereas the front of the skull looking on the lateral X ray is very dark.
So it suggests that the brain is missing from the front. And you would then conclude that the brain blew out of the front because it was shot from the back. So brain and bone missing from the front is what this is meant to look like with completely intact rear. Mostly intact rear, okay, mostly on the lateral X ray, on the lateral X ray right, But then the front to back X ray is inconsistent with that. So they they're
telling they're telling us two totally different stories. That's not how the world works, No, not at all. I mean, obviously, if you have a you know, a disruption of the skull, you should see it from one way a certain way, and from another way a little different. You know, like if you have the disruption on the one side, and that's the other thing. By the way, if it's taken the lateral, it's taken from one side and then the other. Right, does that appear to
be consistent? Did the two laterals appear to be consistent with each other? They are consistent with each other, except for the white patch. The densities are not the same or even close. It's because the fakery that went out in the dark room was not consistent from one side to the other. You needed a very precise clock so that you got the same exposure when you added this white patch. And obviously John Eversoll wasn't careful about that. He was
careless. But of course he was even more careless when he added that six point five milimeters cross section on the front lacks ray. He way overexposed that that wasn't necessary. Right, So what happened when these were dansd you know, during the time of the House Select Committee. What happened during that time
period when they actually went in and did the enhancements. Well, the reason they did that is because if you try to publish these things in books and you have to use the prints, it's very hard because of the extreme range of density to get useful images. So that's one reason that they had to enhance them to make that possible. But they did something else that was really
criminal. I would say on both the frontal and the lateral X rays, you can appreciate a long trail of bullets, a long trail of bullet debris, I should say, I think this is most likely mercury. From a mercury bullet. It starts high in the right forehead and goes three quarters of the way back to the rear, and then it just stops. I think that did not exit, but we can see that clearly on the X ray, and most of the fragments, and especially the smaller ones, are toward
the front. So that strongly suggests a frontal bullet high on the right forehead. Okay, because the fragments would begin to be lesser as the projectile travels. If it's leaving behind fragments, they would and the larger ones would travel the greatest distance, and that's exactly what we see. The largest fragment in that trail is closer to the back of the head, the smaller ones are
in front. Right now, this is what some people have described as like a snowy sort of pattern that goes out exactly right and not at all characteristic of the six point five millimeter mannech or carcnel bullet. They don't break up like that, No they don't. They're specifically designed, according to the Geneva Convention with the jacket to pass through soft tissue and things like that, not
fragment as they travel through the body. That that's part of the that's part of the accords that are there, you know, regarding weapons and war, if I if I remember correctly. So so again we have a real problem here for the pathologists because in their official report that is not what they described. Instead, they describe a bullet trail coming in low on the back of the head where it's where it's actually almost five inches higher than that. So
they totally displaced this trail in their report. That's not something that even my seven year old son would have done. He would have immediately seen that as nonsense. So this was not a mistake. This was a deliberate obfuscation of the actual data. A complete inconsistency again not only between the X rays, but then the descriptions and the use of the X ray supposedly to describe something in written form, they describe something that's entirely not present on the image.
All three of the pathologists agreed with this mislocation. That's not a mistake. There's no way that's a mistake, right because one guy, Okay, he's not familiar with I mean, people have brought this up over and over again that Fink is the only one who was actually familiar with this type of work when it comes to figuring out where bullets might have come from and examining autopsies, as he had done previously with the army. Because remember, Fink is
the guy for the listener. Fink is the guy that was brought in later. Initially he got Humes in Boswell, and Fink shows up a little late, right, But he's actually the only one who's got some training regarding gunshots and what to look for when it comes to autopsies, if I remember correctly. Well, Humes was actually fairly experienced himself because he conducted the weekly brain
cutting sessions at Bethessa Hospital. He was responsible for that, and presumably he did that nearly every week as a training tool for the residents and medical students who were there. Well, so he should have had a good deal of experience with head trauma. Well, head trauma possibly, but gunshots are pretty specific. You know, we don't know how many gunshot cases he did.
Unfortunately, we can't really comment on that, right, But generally, the way I understand it is that think you could say, though, was more familiar because yeah, visited us all the time, right, So familiarity wise, I mean, think was there was a reason why they brought him in. You know, they brought the Army guide to the Navy hospital, right. So okay, moving on though through your story, Right, you have these inconsistencies, You have this stuff, and you gathered it over the course
of a couple of years. Nine visits, you said, right, nine visits all together, nine one a full day each one a full day. So as you're collecting this, what are you doing with it? I mean, what are you deciding to do with it? What are your thoughts about what you're going to do with this? Well, the ninth visit was especially remarkable because I saw things that I had missed on my first eight visits.
Okay, So on one of the lateral X rays, which is not in the public domain, I can't show it to you or printed in any of our books. It's not available. Okay, there is a T shaped inscription like the letter T, lying on its side. It's not a piece of metal. The only way it could have gotten there is somebody scraped emulsion off one side of the film. I don't really know why they did that. Nobody's ever commented on doing it, but somebody at the autopsy must have done
that, maybe just as a personal marker that I was there. I did this, but nobody's ever said anything anyway, there it is. There is a T shaped inscription on one of the lateral X rays, so that means that the emulsion is missing. If you could have looked on the other side, the emulsion would be there. These are double sided emulsions, I should make clear, so the emulsion should be present on one side, but not
on the side of the T shaped inscription. So in my ninth visit I realized this finally, I had missed it in my eight first eight visits. So I had Steve Tilley take the X ray film out of its transparent plastic cover so that I could actually observe the emulsion directly without any intervening surface, and I was amazed. Both sides have intact emulsion. There's no emulsion missing anywhere. That was like a gunshot to me, because it means it can
only mean one thing, that these are copy films. A copy film would retain the memory of that t shaped inscription from the original, but because nobody had scraped any emulsion off a copy film, it would still have intact emulsion on both sides, and yet it would still show the original image. So
that's a copy film. But that's not what the National Archive says, as I clarified in a follow up letter, their claim is that all these X rays are originals, and I swear that one cannot possibly be an original. That's a copy film, just based on the fact that it's got the emotion on both sides. Yeah, that's all it takes, Okay, nothing more than that. And I remember coming out that just shaking my head and going
to dinner that night with my wife and my children. My son, Chris was fifteen years old at the time, and so I started excitedly explaining to him and he said, stop, I understand, just like that. He immediately understood what that meant, right, But most of my colleagues in the research divinity are not that sharp and they still don't understand it. Well,
No, it makes perfect sense. As a matter of fact, I think I've seen an illustration printed where you you printed or someone printed on your behalf alongside of what you wrote a representation to it to show people what it is you're you're talking about, and with the explanation exactly as you just laid it out now, and with a little more detail, even exactly this. So
I don't know why as somebody doesn't get it, I don't. It's it's it's an oddity though, because I'm trying to think of what would be the greater purpose for doing this and allowing this uh, this letter T to exist? Why is there a copy film? What would somebody do with the original? Unless you were making a composite of some kind, And therefore the only way to do that would be to do it on a copy of the film,
not on the original. Instead of altering the original, it would be easier to make a copy where you're adding something together, like if you're combining to let's say, whoever did this T shaped inscription, I think did it
quite innocently. He had no idea what it would later prove to mean well, fair enough, but it's our best guest because we don't know necessarily who did that, I mean right, So probably one of the technologists that that sounds right, you know that that makes the most spe typically do that in an xt right department. Well, do you think that they would have done that because they were ordered to make a copy? Would that be the thing
to do? I mean, because look, it's difficult to go through the statements of you know, mister Custer through the years, right, because they evolved, they change a bit, so it's hard to maintain exactly what happens step by step with him. And you know, I'm not I'm not I like your suggestion. It is possible that Custer did that before he actually copied the film. We don't know for sure, for example, whether John Eversall
actually knew how to copy films. Most radiologists probably didn't know how to do that. I had to learn how to do it when I got into this game, and I was able to make fakes of my own, that is, fake X rays with strange objects on them. So it's possible that Eversol actually did ask Custer to do this and may have maybe and maybe Custer did this on purpose? We don't know. Yeah, didn't you at one point like make a fake with a duck in it or something? Yeah? I
made a bird brain, I heard. Next up my classic my daughter's plastic tracing kit which was for a tyranodon, and I use it to make a fake skull X ray with a tyranodon flying around inside, and I called it brain. Oh that's right, Yeah, yeah, it was okay, Okay, now I remember. It's just a vague memory. I know I have it somewhere that there's a picture. Yeah, it wasn't hard to make fake X rays in that era, but none of the government investigating agencies were aware
of this. They were totally oblivious to this, and they didn't know a thing about optical density either. That was really tragic. So, I mean, you've been through these things and basically you can prove that they're inconsistent and there's fakery directly in the X rays, and I can show how the fakery was done and produce my own fakes. There you go, Uh so what else can you ask for? There? You know, is there is there
more to that story? Or should we move to the photographs? Because you got a chance to look at also when when you get access to the autopsy materials, you also got access to the photographs which the public is semi familiar with because there's that Fox set of photographs which has circulated. You know that they came from James K. Fox as a source at one point, et
cetera, et cetera. Anybody would be familiar those If you just you know, put in a search engine JFK autopsy photo, you'll see one of these photos. And I'm told by more than one person who's been to the National Archives and had permission that you know, there are photos that are consistent with what you see in the Fox photos. There's other photos there too, but
there are photos that are consistent with it. And in fact, one of them, which is really interesting, shows the skull, which we've been talking about, the skin refracted away from the skull, and there's some argument about it, you know, and Michael Boden had a little trouble orienting it during the House Select Committee things like that, and he got he got it wrong and he got it wrong. But anyway, if you wouldn't mind tell us a little bit about that and what did you see when comparing you know,
a photo of the skull to the X ray of the skull. Well, of course, the the big deal is that the photograph of the back of JFK's head does not show the big hole that all the witnesses at Parkland and Dealey Plaza and Bethesda all saw. Then we're talking about perhaps as many as a two dozen medical personnel, that is, doctors and nurses at Parkland Hospital who were right up next to JFK. They all were quite consistent about a big hole in the back of the head. But the photographs do not show
a big hole in the back of the head. They just show the scalp intact covering that whole area, and it's almost totally devoid of blood, which is by itself astonishing because the shirt was just totally soaked, as you can see in public images of the shirt online, and of course we reproduce them in our book too, So that makes no sense. How is it possible that the scalp is just like it came out of the shower. It's all freshly washed and clean and hardly any blood, But the shirt is totally silked
with blood. How is that possible? Right? And the back of the head still looks wet in most images, even though you know, the only thing I have to say about that is it appears as though a gloved hand is holding up the skin on the back of the head. That's the only thing I can I can make out of that photograph, you know, to make sense of what it is I'm looking at is if the problem with that photograph. But I examined, Oh, I should make this clear at first.
Sure, every view in the photographic set has a twin that means it's possible to do stereo viewing of each view. So there are two photographs of the back of the head. These are taken in quick succession chronologe and displaced in space by just a small amount, but just enough so that you should,
in principle be able to see a three D view. So I spent a lot of time at the archives looking at all these pairs of photographs, and everyone essentially gave me a very natural appearing three dimensional view, which was quite startling to see. Except here, except in the back of the head, it didn't work. And the reason it didn't work is because these two images are exactly identical. You cannot get a stereo view from two exactly identical
images. So this is obviously a photographic insert and the people who did it were too lazy to do slightly different views so that you could get a stereo view. They took a shortcut and just struck the same image in each set, so the images flat, it's just two D. But that does not happen in the other pairs. So that's a dead giveaway that this cannot possibly
be a true image from the autopsy. And at that time you were able to use what they call a stereoscopic viewer to actually do this what we're talking about, and this on all these pairs, right except the back of the head doesn't do or what the other ones do, Okay, and that that is an interesting point right there. So what do you have there? What do you conclude about that? Again not necessarily being a photographic expert, but
what are you to conclude? Okay, they're the same picture. There's something wrong with the technique here where you're supposed to have a slight variation, because obviously your eyes have a slight variation. Each eye independently comes together creates a triangulation. This is how depth perception is realized by the brain. Is the
two eyes come together and triangulate on a spot and do a measurement. Okay, It's part of the way the eye works, and that's why it works the stereoscopic viewing when you have these two very very slight variations in the pairs. So okay, I just wanted to explain that again just in case somebody missed it. So where do we go from here in your story? I
want you to keep going. Well, what you do see on this photograph, on these two photographs of the back of the head is a small red spot which was adopted as the entry site for the post to your bullet. The problem with that is that nobody at Parkland saw such a red spot, nor did any of the pathologists see a red spot. It's clearly stated in the record. They were asked about this and they each said, no, we didn't see anything like that. That's not where the bullet came in.
That's way too high. So no living witness at that time saw what in the photograph. And this is a roundish, reddish spot that's around the kali that could that could conceivably be a bullet entry, but nobody saw it. It's about in the calik about in the calic area of the head is that right, we're talking about the kalic area. It's a lot higher than the
entry site that the pathologist identified and with which I agree. And meanwhile, again we have an inconsistency with the description from the people that are there. Yeah, that's an impossible disagreement, right, So you have another another disagreement between the written record and the photographic or in the case of the X ray, well, I guess you could call that a photographic record as well.
So you have a photographic record and a written record which is supposed to be based on observations of the body itself, and these things are inconsistent with each other. Just going down the line again, Now here's another thing that probably a lot of your even well educated listeners, are not aware of. In the lateral photographs, we see a wall in the background, a tiled wall with a telephone on it. But we have a very detailed picture by Harold
Redberg which places the telephone in a completely different location. If your audience has my book, we're talking about figure h one that's the autopsy photograph, but Ridberg sketches figure six' two in case people want to compare. So I've concluded that either Ridberg was totally stoned at the time he drew this sketch, or there was some obvious manipulation of the photograph taken from the side right.
I mean, in the detail in that photograph. I used to have a very good copy of the Fox said, I don't have them any longer, but they I could. I could see the grout in between the tiles, So I mean, this is not a poor quality photograph all the way around, high quality. And here's another thing that's very curious. In that tile wall directly superior to JFK's forehead, there is a tile that doesn't fit. It's narrow than all the other ones. It's just out of place. Yeah,
happens to be just directly above JFK's forehead. Yeah. The only thing I could make out of that when I saw that is that maybe somebody had patched the wall at some point, you know, for some reason. That was the only reason why I thought maybe a tile was out of place. But it is weird. But if you believe Ridberg's sketch, that wall wasn't there like that, Well there you go see more inconsistencies. I so wonder that the word inconsistency didn't make it in your book title here because there's a
lot of them. Well, we've also got the Zapruiter film, don't we Ah, Okay, so let's talk about that. We see the black Do we see the large exit hole in the back of JFK's head on the Zapruiter
film. Actually there are a few frames where we do. Most people are not aware of that, and we discussed that in our work, and I also discussed it in my Zapruter Film lecture last November in Dallas, Sorry Pittsburgh, but anyway, Sidney Wilkinson and I went to the sixth floor Museum to look at the MPI images which were taken from the original, well the supposed
original Zapruter film. These are first generation images. The extant film in the archives is called the zero generation, So this is just one generation removed from what purports to be the original in Washington, DC. That's actually in Maryland now. So Sydney and I were sitting there opposite each other at the table, and when I saw the black patch that had been placed over this exit
hole, I almost burst out laughing because it was so childishly done. I swear my daughter at age seven would have done a better job of covering that up than these so called Kodak experts. So they had to do this because if there was any evidence that there was a large exit hole in the back of the head and any of the photographic work, I think a lot of people would have immediately concluded that there had to be a shot from the front.
That is, after all, with the Parkland medical personnel all concluded. So my basic summary is this, All the evidence points toward a big hole in the back of JFK's had except for that pair of autopsy photographs. But we know that we don't get a stereo view there. And to really make the case, we know that the autopsy photographs have no chain of possession. They have no prominence right because there's a disconnect here as to where they went
when they were being developed and everything else right isn't now. The Department of Defense found the camera and lens combination that were used at the autopsy and they delivered this to the HSCA, the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the seventies, and the House Select Committee decided that it was politically expedient to disagree with
the Department of Defense. They offered no argument for this. It was strictly a political decision, just politically, we're going to disagree with a camera. They had to or their case would have totally loaded. They would have been left with nothing to stand on, so they had no choice. Well, no offense to you, but what you just said doesn't make any sense to
me at all. Can you make sense to that for somebody listening to this, please, because I know what you're going to say, but i'd really like you to say it, because it's like, wait a minute, a political decision is made to disavow, to disagree with. They say they matched up. Yeah, the Department of Defense says, here's here's the camera because look it's the Navy hospital, so the DD has possession of this stuff. They say, look, here's the camera, here's the lens, this is
the combination. That's all there is. Okay, and here you go. And they say, no, that's not right, and it can't be right because we know these photographs are authentic. That happened. Okay. See maybe it's just me, But it doesn't sound like a political decision, does it. It sounds like something else. Ok People, we're an honest decision. And they would have said, oh, okay, so we can't trust these photographs because things don't match up, so we can't trust these photographs to make
any conclusions. That's what they should have said, right, So we have a lot of inconsistencies here. And by the way, if if you the listener, go to themanticview dot org. There are many articles and uh images on the website, a lot of stuff that you've written here, and I just just suggesting to people that they go ahead and check it out. A couple of links to this and that, a whole bunch of links at the bottom. Actually, I guess a few reviews of the things you've written,
stuff like that. A whole lot of stuff on themanticview dot org. So the mantic view M A N T I K. By the way, view that's all one word dot org. And I'll put links to that and some other things in the show. No for everybody, but yeah, please continue on. I mean, we we've just touched on the photographs. And okay, so now you've looked at the photographs, you've got inconsistencies everywhere. Let's
talk about some more inconsistencies in the photographs. Sure, go ahead, photograph, let's talk about the photograph of the of JFK's back, back of his torsehole. Okay, Now this is interesting to me because there is something that you know, a layman, just from a quick glance. You look at it, you say, well, this round thing here looks like a hole. Right, looks like this would be a bullet hole in his back on the right side, on the right side. Yeah, you're looking at the
photographic scapula there you go. Right, Uh so, what what about that? Well, that's not what I want to focus on. Okay, sorry, And that's that's why it took me nine viewings to see what was really important. Okay, the important fact is on the left side. Ah see, I was drawn to that on the right side initially. That's why I started there. That purports to be a very shallow projectile wound. We don't know what caused it. We don't have any physical evidence, but it was
very shallow. The pathologists could only enter their fingers or probe a very short distance, and James Jenkins has confirmed that he says the probe did not enter through the lining of the lung. He could see the probe putting pressure on the lining of the lung, but it never entered the lung, so it was obviously very superficial and had nothing to do with killing JFK. But yet
no projectile. I'm sorry, there's no projectile associated to that wound. That no physical evidence, right, and there's just this thing that appears to maybe be a hole. And by the way, I read one description from one of the autopsy doctors saying that they thought that it wasn't even a hole, that they thought it was a drop of blood, you know, on the right side. Yeah, on the right side, no, I think I think most people agree that that was a wound from some kind of projectile.
Yeah, most people would. But I did read a description once where this is what was said. But anyway, let's talk about the left side though. Yeah, let's focus on the left side, which nobody has ever done. And and me too, I'm guilty. My first age visits, I missed it, Okay, so there is a real value to going there nine times, I guess. So the ninth time is the charm. Okay,
it's amazing. So on the on the left side, there is what appears to be a drop of blood reasonably sizable, and you can see it in the images in our book and also in my previous textbook, like hardcover book in color, which is even more impressive. So, as I said, there are two images for each view. So I compared these two images for the left back, and they're not the same. But I already said they're not supposed to be the same. Boh, but these are two different to
make any sense. Okay. So one of them is a black spot, all right. The other one is not a black spot. It's a more light colored spot and it has a horizontal line through it. So what happened there? Did somebody tell the photographer, stop, I've got to change this spot for some reason. Give me a minute. I'm going to lighten it up and give me a minute more because I'm going to draw a line through
it. That's what you have to propose to explain that wildly different second image, which is not in the public domain, so I can't show it to you, but I simulated it and it appears in my hardcover book, right, because sometimes you've had to just you know, create your own version of something that is not a public domain not in the public domain, right, Okay, So obviously no one's going to say that my described scenario here makes
any sense. Of course it doesn't. Nobody jumped in front of the photographer and said, let me make this a little different. That didn't happen, right, This was obviously photographic manipulation. I don't really know why it was done, but it was obviously photographic manipulation. This is not an original photograph, it can't be. So therefore we conclude, yeah, there was photographic manipulation. You can see it in the set in the National Archives today if
you know what you're looking for. Well, so, yeah, there was photographic manipulation. So that makes sense because we know the telephone on that child wall is in the wrong place. That's another example of it. Now that we know that they are messing around with these images, right, so we
have various images and they're not even consistent with each other. It's almost as if they sent three different guys to do this and they didn't talk to each other about it, because they're not even consistent with their changes they're making.
Yeah, let's go back to the Zapruter film for example. Sure, as I said, we saw the first generation copies of the back of JFK's had in the Zupruter film frame three one seven in particular and when well, I should say, Sidney Wilkinson ordered a six K scan directly from the National Archives. This would be something like I think it was third generation as compared third or fourth generation as compared to the first generation we saw in Dallas at the
sixth four Museum. But even in the sixth K scan that she has, the resolution is still incredible. So Sydney has shown this to over seventy Hollywood experts. These are the people who have done all the major films and restorations that everybody in our audience would recognize. In one of them, Ned Price was head of Warner Brothers Restoration, and I'm going to quote what he said, Oh my god, I can't believe they made such a bad fake.
That was exactly my response when I saw. That's why I almost laughed. It was too ridiculous, too childishly done. So even ned Price said that, wow. And this is based on three seventeen. Yes, that's right, that's the best example. But there were multiple frames where you can see the black patch, and it's not even consistent from frame to frame. If you look at it carefully, the patch moves around from one frame to another within fractions of a second, that's not what a real pad us. No,
just ridiculous for certain. As a matter of fact, I'm going to just drop you with my my three seventeen Zapruder frame, uh, just just for you to look at later. But the resolution in the first generation images we saw are vastly superior to that of course, of course. But that's the thing is that there are so many different versions of it out there now that it's you know, almost impossible to tell what somebody's even working with any
longer. But but but they actually went and got the scan from the National Archives because for a while there you had to get a contact print at your expense. Of course, they couldn't just you know, put it on a DVD for you or something. You had to actually go get a contact print of a film, which was this whole process, and I think it ran about nine hundred bucks at one point. Yeah, it was pretty expensive for Sydney. I don't remember the exact amount she paid, but it was sizeable.
Yeah, I mean that's you know, look for twenty six seconds of film, that's pretty expensive, you know, because that's the approximate length I think of the Zapruder film, right, twenty six seconds. Yeah, that's pretty close, you know. So, yeah, it's a little a little rough, and it's supposed to be the original, which well, there's problems there too. And Doug Horn talks about this a lot. I mean,
you're familiar with Doug stuff on this too. Right, Well, if people are interested in the Zapruder film issue, they should look at my lecture from Pittsburgh last November, which is online, and the link to it is in the book we're talking about, so it's all there, right right, Well, I was busy that week last last year, but I did hear about this, And did they put it on YouTube for you? I think? Or no? Yeah, my live lecture is available online, okay, and
the link is in the book. And Doug Horn was there and participated in it as well. A lot of this is based on his work, Okay, I just wanted to That's why I thought it was good to mention him right there, which, by the way, along with the reference books his five volumes you know, are going to sit next to this book here on myself. Yeah, he's credited on the front cover of the book for much
of the information we learned about nineteen sixty three. There you go and an incredible amount of information in that five volumes that he put out, you know, and a step by step. I mean there's one volume I think it's maybe Volling four is entirely devoted to this. The Bruder film, I think. But you know what impresses me good. Dug's book came out more than ten years ago. Yes, and I discussed this, I think in my
previous book. I list all the things we've learned since Doug's books came out, and it's really quite astonishing how little we knew even when Doug wrote those books. So this case has not stood still by any means. Well, that's the thing is, you know, this journey that started out at your
kitchen table there, uh, you know, has continued on now. I mean, because you were talking about the the early nineties when you were when you were first examining this, and then you made your nine trips, uh, you know, and later on you would do the lectures and like I said, you'd been on the Men who Killed Kennedy, Uh, you know, so on and so forth. And I saw you in a couple of
documentaries this year. I don't know if they were using old footage or new I think there's a mix of stuff that went out there this year, this past year with you. And again, it's always always really interesting to hear the points that you make. Some of them you just made right here tonight, and I appreciate that because this is a great overview. But again, what is the additional information in the final analysis here that the limousine we didn't
go to right? Right? So let's talk about that just really quickly, if you don't mind, I mean, yeah, I don't you have time yet? Yeah, yeah, Let's go for it and cover the limousine a little bit. Give people an idea of all what they can find in here, because I do want to recommend the book, and I'll give you the link, by the way, in the show notes, guys, would you prefer they go to Amazon to buy it? Or is there somewhere else or
no, there's just Amazon? Okay, fair enough, I'll give you the Amazon link to the final analysis, which is co authored by David W. Mantick and Jerome Corsi, just so you know, and again you know, I don't have mister Corsi here today, but I do have David Mantick and fascinating conversations so far and again, I'm just pointing out some things and trying to walk through this experience that he represents here because you said, this is
about your you know, trajectory, your personal trajectory through the case, so to speak. Yeah, and the limousine also incorporates my personal experience. Okay, So let's talk about that, because I usually don't see you speak about the limousine. In most places, they often have you talk about the X rays. You're one of the few doctors who has gotten access to those materials.
That is a fairly limited club of gentlemen that I have encountered that have actually been there to see the stuff, that got the permission from the Kennedy family lawyers and all that. But the limousine, I don't usually hear you talk about it, So go ahead, No, this is new. So the basic question is what caused the throat wound. We know that it was a small wound. One of the doctors described it as being about the diameter of a pencil, so just a few millimeters. It was nearly round,
and it was surprisingly smooth. The smoothness, of of course, is characteristic of an entry wound and is not characteristic of an exit wound. So most of us who have a little common sense I long believe that this represented an entry of some kind of projectile. The problem was, but there's no bullet in the case to explain this. So what in the world did this? And the amazing thing is that the pathologists never really did figure this out.
I think to the day they died, they didn't know what caused this wound. So I had suspected a long time ago that it was possibly caused by a small piece of glass, a glass shard that had come from the windshield.
That would fit the picture rather well because windshields break up in small pieces, very small pieces, and the trajectory from the windshield what we know what the damage to the windshield was, So I'm talking about the trajectory from the damage to the windshield to the throat is consistent with a shot from the left front of the limousine, possibly the south knoll opposite the grassy gnome. So
we knew that. We also knew that there was a contusion, a five centimeter contusion where blood had leaked out at the top of the right lung apex. So whatever projectile this was had gone from that throat wound to the top of the right lung. In other words, that all implies a shot from the left front. But there's no projectile in the case. So when in
the world is going on? But a glass shard would explain this? A glass shard would not have exited, It was too small to had too little energy to go very far, but it could easily have gone to the top of the right lung and caused all that bruising. Is there any other material aside from glass that you could imagine that would be consistent with that idea? Now, nothing that I can reasonably think of. We don't have any matis fragments in the case that would explain it. For example, it's just a
total desert of metal there. Now here's another curious thing about the autopsy. We know that there were two tiny holes in JFK's cheek, the right cheek, as I recall, two tiny holes that were leaking fluid, and leaking so much fluid that the embalmbers had to plug those holes. What was that? Well, if you believe the throat wound was caused by a glass shard, then of course you wouldn't be surprised to learn that there were a couple
of more tiny glass shards that caused those holes in JFK's cheek. So how many autypesies do you know of that described tiny holes in anybody's cheek that they had to plug with wax. The only is it unique it is considering the circumstances, because look, when you have a death in a motorcycle accident, sometimes gravel gets driven up into different parts of the body, saw tissues,
things like that. That was the only thing I could imagine that was the other material I was imagining here is that, you know, if not in the limos so we can't invoke the No, there's a problem there. I'm just saying that theoretically, I'm thinking that, you know, sometimes small stones get embedded in the body of someone in a motorcycle era era for the forensic
examiner, you've probably seen that more than once. Yeah. So anyway, in the nineteen nineties, Doug Weldon accidentally, as he tells the story, ran into a technician from the Ford Motor Plant who saw the windshield on Monday
after the assassination. He saw the limousine JFK's limousine on the Monday after the assassination, and he saw the windshield the original motorcade windshield, and he describes where the hole in the windshield was, which is consistent with the location seen in the photographs taken Indie League Plaza, which we showed in our book.
He also said that he has many decades of experience in the glass business and that he swore that the hole in the windshield could only have come from a shot from the front, judging from the way the glass was broken, and we discussed this in detail in our book. So Doug Wheldon's witness was actually reviled, I think that's the right word. Reviled by many of my colleagues in this JFK case is totally unbelievable, and they did not accept it.
Then a few years ago, I was discussing this case with one of my best friends, who is my roommate in medical school at the University of Michigan, and he said, oh, yeah, my dad saw the limousine after they brought it to Dearborn because he worked at the fort plant. I said, what, your father worked at the hort plant and he said, oh
yeah, I was there a number of times, okay. And it turns out that his father had also seen the windshield and had seen the hole in the windshield, and he was really really upset about this because he knew that it totally contradicted the case that we heard in the media that there was no hole in the windshield, right, And the explanations about this have always been that, well, apparently, you know, part of the because they did
find bullet fragments in the rug and things like that. So they said that part of the broken bullet had probably struck high up on the windshield and even part of the metal, you know, towards the top of the windshield, right, and that's probably where it came from. It was the idea, and that makes some sense if you had a bullet that broke apart upon impact. It's not supposed to, as we discussed earlier, but if it broke apart on impact, it could go anywhere, could do damage to different things.
It could strike the car, the seat, people, whatever. But none of these metal fragments were in the body. They were not seen on the X ray. They were found on the floor of the limousine. Right. Well talked about something else must have caused the throat wound and the contusion at the top of the right long apex. So we have Now, we have two witnesses who were there at the Dearborn Plant on Monday, immediately after the assassination. The limousine was there. Well. I always found that remarkable.
And the other thing is that you don't have any damage to you know, for the bullet to change the trajectory or for the thing to break apart or anything else. I don't see evidence of damage to bones at least, you know, in around the neck like all of the uh oh it's the cervical vertebrate. Yeah, seemed completely uninjured. I don't think if there was any any useful evidence there of bone injury. And that's correct, right. I can't find any in what I've been able to view, and obviously I
didn't get to view the materials you did. But I've seen versions of this and you don't have damage there. Nobody counts for any damage there. I find that extremely remarkable. And the House Committee looked at this quite specifically and they agreed with you and me. Yeah, so you know, you have a very odd situation here. Now, bullets can change trajectory and soft tissue. That happens. I mean, even if you take a look at when the slow motion versions of when the bullets shot into that gel. Right,
there's lots of films out there of these demonstrations. You've seen them. You know, bullets don't necessarily travel in exactly straight lines, but they don't do you know, you don't have something that passes through and strikes the windshields and is in all the different pieces all over the place that doesn't wind up leaving behind. See, that's the thing. There's a cleanliness to the wound. And by the way, the neck wound that you're talking about where you think,
you know, you're you're theorizing about this piece of glass. The other problem there is it was obviously destroyed because the tracheotomy. You know about that. Obviously, anybody who knows this case a little bit knows about the tracheotomy, the attempts to save his life at the time and all of that. So that wound was completely mutilated at the time of life saving measures being taken. Well, that's not what the surgeon there, Malcolm Perry said. He
said he left the wound in violet. That is his word. He did not mutilate it. Here comes the contradictions. Why do I say they mutilated it, because look at the pictures of the photographs show. Yeah, so nothing happened Parkland and the photographs right, because if you take a look at what is often referred to as the Stare of Death photo where Kennedy's eyes are open and he's on his back, and you know, you get a very clear view of, you know, from above, of that throat wound,
it looks completely mutilated. And then it gets even worse, by the way, when you when you go lateral on the body, because it appears to be an evulse almost exploded. This is gonna sound really bizarre and insensitive, my apologies to anybody, but truth is, it is almost like a Jiffy pop has come up out of Kennedy's throat and been torn open so you can get the popcorn. That's how mutilated it looks from the side in the set
of photographs that I had. You're absolutely right. I even asked the radiologist John Eversall about this trachiatic wound, and I still remember the horror in his voice when he said, I would never want one like that, No, because you know you can't. You couldn't even fit a garden host. Look when when you do a ttrachaea me even an emergency trachiata like I've been taught to do this. I had a different training for a couple of things.
Here's the thing. You need a tight seal for whatever it is you're inserting, even if you're doing the you know on the spot, you can use a pen this kind of thing to open up the throat because you have an obstruction above it, something like this, Okay, that can't be removed otherwise, et cetera. You have to have a tight seal there. You can't have a wide open hole and then stick something very small in there to to
use the tube as a way of allowing air to travel. Okay, it's not possible to do it that way, right, So somebody middlelated this intransit Yeah, definitely like somewhere in between what Perry describes, because what Perry describes is very sensible, a very small incision in order so that you can open it up without tearing it any further and you the existing opening. It makes a lot of sense what he says, but that's not what it looks like
by the time it's photographed at all. Crenshaw Charles Crenshaw, who was in Er when JFK was there, also said that what he saw in the photograph is not the way JFK left the emergency room. No, not at all. I mean, and you know, he had this very short book something I believe in the title said Trauma Room One. It was a very small book, yes, paperback that he released, which describes us in great detail, what exactly the way it should have looked. And even this year,
what was it. Paramount Plus put out a what the Doctor saw, What the doctor saw? Yes, everyone shood. Everyone really interested in this case should watch that documentary. It's quite shocking, especially if you've been brainwashed into the media view. Well, what's amazing to me about this is, you know, much like the Rob Ryaner thing, you know, who shot JFK. Well, in nineteen eighty eight, Okay, NOVA did a show and
had these doctors on there, a different set of doctors. The majority of the doctors on the NOVA special in eighty eight have since passed, but still many of the people that were witnessed there in Trauma Room one in the nineteen eighty eight around the twenty fifth anniversary. Okay, this is the sixtieth, That was the twenty fifth. This is one of the things that actually got me into the case and starting to study it, you know, for real,
and actually calling up witnesses and doing all this kind of stuff. Was that special because these doctors who also got permission and NOVA brought them in there one by one. I'm sure you recall this, right, doctor Mantick, you've seen that. Oh yeah, of course, yeah, this is very important stuff. But to have this, what the doctors saw come out at
this time is really remarkable. People should watch this. If you really think the Warrant Commission has any truth at all, watch this and see what sense you can make out of it. It doesn't fit with the Warren Commission at all. And I mean to go even deeper into it just a little bit more. The video that was recorded by William Matt's in law called the Gathering,
which is not a blu ray out there. Yeah, there's various medical witnesses come together in one place on that blu ray and tell you, guess what about the same story that we just told you, and doctor Mantick is telling you based on people who were witnesses to what the body was like not only at Parkland but at Bethesda, you know, and and various various different
stops in between. Here you got everything from you know, a basically an orderly to a doctor, to people who actually worked on the body itself and were part of the life saving efforts that were made all come together in that video too. Again, I'm not trying to just mention a whole bunch of people when I'm talking to you, doctor Mantick. I'm just saying that there's other independent stuff outside of what you have that supports a lot of the stuff
you're saying. William Law has done absolutely fantastic interviews with so many of the parent professionals who were at the autopsy, and I have been fortunate enough to be at one of his encounters with these people, and so I've met most of them on multiple occasions. They're all highly believable. No, absolutely, And you know again, another one of those great reference books is in the Eye of History, Yes, which I rush forward to the first edition.
There you have it. So anyway, with that, I think we've gone over plenty tonight, doctor Mantick, and I really appreciate you taking the time to do this with me. Is there anything you'd like to add in conclusion here? Again, I'm recommending this book the final analysis, and we discussed even the title and where that came from at the beginning of this discussion.
But you know, obviously we could do this all night, going over these different things and what else did you learn and the rest of your journey, and we barely got even away from the kitchen table with you. Actually, we went from the kitchen table to the National Archives and didn't even get into
the rest of the journey. Because I have one suggestion for your viewers if they purchased this book, and if you're interested in the jfk assassination, you really should, and you don't have a lot of time, or you'd like to get to the gist of things quickly, just read my epilogue at the end of most of the chapters. That will summarize things very quickly for you. Right, and look the epilogues and again I haven't read them all,
But have you read the epilogu yet? Yeah? Yeah, Oh, that's really good because it's not at the beginning of the book at all, it's the end, we see. I do that a lot me too. I read books back, skip to the end a lot of times and go, okay, where's I want to know where we're going? Yeah, And then it's like, Okay, now show me how we got there. Uh that's I don't know why my mind works that way, but that's what I do. Yeah, But I think the epilogue is a really good summary of everything
we've talked about here. Yeah. Absolutely, Well. I tried to hit most of the key points, but not bring everything in, obviously because I want people to read it. But I wanted to bring in some of the key points, some they might have heard before. And uh, you know, I remember Doug Weldon and I didn't know what to think of that, to be honest with you, No, And I think the whole research community was kind of baffled by that. But there's no need to be. It
was it was the truth. It's it's just it was so strange for him to have come up with that, and it was like, I don't know, it just was aut of place with everything else. I couldn't put it together with the rest of what was going on there. It required an amazing coincidence. So I spend a lot of time in my previous book reviewing all the incredible incidences that have occurred in my own life and discussed a little bit about how probable some of these things are well, it's an amazing uh Man.
By the way, in the future, I definitely want to discuss this other very large, very densely illustrated book, very colorful book. Colorful. Yeah, and and and we didn't even talk about the Harper fragment. We didn't talk about you know, there's a lot of stuff here we could go over. H and I hope in the future we can do this again and again. If you go to let me just make sure I've got the website correct, because I don't want to screw that up at all. The manticview
all one word dot org. Okay, yes, and if you go over there, you can definitely find links to books, presentations, a discussion about how the title of this textbook really this decoded book changed titles at one point. Who knows. Maybe maybe the original one is a collector's item. I don't know how many of them got out there many but you know, either way, I am really impressed by that book, even more so than this
one. But the final analysis again not done with it, so who knows, Maybe I'm going to be even more impressed once I get you know, from the beginning to the epilogue, which I'm still in the midst of getting there. Yeah, well, thank you for your kind words. I should add just this little bit. In the first week after this book became publicly available on Amazon, it sold four thousand copies in just one week. Right, well, hopefully we add to that a bit, you know. I
hope we do. Yeah, thank you for this opportunity, absolutely, and I want to thank you again for joining us, and thank you guys for listening, because look, at all times, I'm trying to examine these things and I wanted to have doctor Manticon for a long time. So I'm really glad that I had the chance to do this tonight. And I hope you guys got a lot out of it, and we'll get more out of it. And yeah, go get these books. Uh step getting ready, get
ready for And you're showing a fact. This is James Corben at Quorter Report dot com and you're listening to the Olly Affected o'slly dot com. Go ahead, call it is given the truth about the Javey assassination. Right, well, what do you want to know Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends you knew Ruby and Barry Hanty weapons. Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon, but okay, Oswald was on the job and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on,
now, has it real effort on the day of pay assassination? Book into Reclaim. Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her her own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence in the case to get at well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith Barry Baker in her own words from the author himself signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at
k I as jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims Judith very Baker in her own words to use expressed my callers. School's there anyone else who happens to get on the air of Jelly dot com if not necessarily reflect views of Jelly dot com or JOCKO Chilly And we are not responsible for any stupidity which might ensue. Thank you in denial. The Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks by Larry
Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new five else it exposes things about the Bay of 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 Larry Hancock. 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 Force, 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 revealed 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 continent 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 we'll show you what President Kennedy was up against. For more information, The War State, dot Com, dot Com, Radio Net, Wallstreet Window, dot Gold Silver, the stock Market, Wall Street Window dott. Perhaps you're invested deeply, Perhaps you're not in deep enough.
Maybe you're thinking about getting started, Wall Street Windows, Condo com. Michael Swanson, the author of the War State, understood these trends professionally for many years, and now he gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wall Street Streemo, Dott go there, now go there, now go there Now revelation through conversation, Oh Chili dot com