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