ARTICLES

Icon

The Assassination of JFK: Perspectives Half a Century later (2016). By Robert A. Wagner

Icon

Cold Case JFK

Icon

How to think like John McAdams

Icon

Autopsy X-Rays

Icon

The JFK Skull X-Rays: Evidence for Forgery

Icon

The Silence of the Historians

Icon

The JFK Autopsy Materails

Icon

A Conversation with John Ebersole M.D.

Icon

The Medical Evidence Decoded

Icon

The Zapruder Film Controversy

Icon

Humes & Boswell Depositions

Icon

The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest “Metallic Fragment”

Icon

Fiester on Trail—Primordial Questions that still Fester

Icon

Wagner Response to David Mantik

Icon

Boo Review: Reclaiming History

Icon

Horne Review: A Nearly entirely Postive review

Icon

Speer Critique: A New Perspective

Icon

Short Articles by David Mantik

FOREWORD

David W. Mantik, MD, Ph.D. is a radiation oncologist from Rancho Mirage, CA, USA. He received his doctorate in physics from the University of Wisconsin, and then did a post-doctoral fellowship at Stanford University. Next came a tenure-track faculty position in physics at the University of Michigan, after which he left for medical school at the same institution. After internship and residency in radiation oncology at the LAC/USC Medical Center in Los Angeles, he joined the faculty at the Loma Linda University, where he held a fellowship from the American Cancer Society. For over 35 years he has treated cancer patients with X-rays, electrons, and protons. This requires meticulous knowledge of both external and internal anatomy—in the only medical specialty in which this is critical (or else tumors will be missed).

Here are quotes from Dr. Mantik.

In 1993 I visited the National Archives on four separate days to examine the autopsy X-rays and photographs. (Altogether I have visited nine times over multiple years.) While there I used a technique called optical densitometry - to study the X-rays. This technique has been available for many years but had never been applied to the JFK autopsy X-rays. It measures the transmission of ordinary light through selected points of the X-ray film. If I had measured thousands of points I could have constructed a three dimensional topographic map of the X-rays. The higher points on this map would represent the blackest areas of the X-ray film and would correspond to areas in the body where the most X-rays had penetrated to the film. In a way, therefore, the information contained in the X-ray film is converted from two dimensions into three dimensions and is that much richer in detail. The range of peaks and valleys on such a topographic map would be expected to fall within a well-defined range for a normal human skull. Any values that were outside of this range - and especially those that lay unnaturally far outside would therefore raise questions of authenticity. Based on three powerful clues from the extant autopsy X-rays at NARA, we now know that the three skull X-rays are copies, and that each one has been critically altered. One change was done quite specifically to incriminate Oswald. It is clear now that three shots struck the head, as discussed in my e-book, JFK’s Head Wounds.

And here are his comments about historians.

Between 1994 and 1998, the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) processed for release approximately 60,000 JFK assassination documents. Its staff also conducted new depositions and interviews with many medical witnesses, some completely new to the case. This wide panorama of fresh sources amassed a compelling case for a post-assassination cover-up in the medical evidence, an area heretofore almost totally ignored by historians. Inasmuch as the assassination is a major event of the twentieth century, and may well represent a turning point in American history, it is incumbent upon historians to understand and explain this event - as well as those that surround it. To date, however, a deafening silence has reigned on these matters, as historians have preferred to tolerate the harvest of The Warren Report rather than to cultivate their own fields.

Possibly inquisitive historians, naturally enough, have no craving to be tainted as 'barmy' by the media paintbrushes, as well might befall them were they to admit publicly to such curiosity. The plain fact, though, is that this controversial issue frightens historians: most genuinely fear for their own professional prestige, and many fear subconsciously at what would gaze back at them from the subterranean depths of this case were they to peer too intently into the well of history. Given the unique nature of these events, and their profound impact on America, this fear is understandable. Ultimately, however, these issues must be faced honestly and responsibly. It is no longer sufficient merely to quote a lawyer turned journalist on these serious questions, nor can the matter be left to the most amateur of professions - the media.

Given the manipulation of the autopsy materials (which were controlled by the Secret Service), the post-assassination cover-up necessarily required the assistance of key government personnel, probably at a high level, possibly even the highest. The growing body of evidence for this conclusion is now simply too great to ignore. Heretofore, the historians' tacitly donned mantle of innocence radiated an aura of genteel credibility, but that mantle has become threadbare. If historians continue to deny the deceitful reality underlying the post-assassination cover-up, they risk becoming accessories after the fact. The bar of history is even now calling them to the stand. The time for a response has come.

UPDATES

Anissa Andrews Journal of Health Science & Education.

See Here

*The Journal follows the tenets of the Creative Commons Attribution License providing open access to scholars through the use of a Digital Objective Identifier (DOI) by Google Scholar.

Journal of Health Science

Journal of Health Science & Education

The reason for the JFK Records Act was not to minimize government secrecy or to increase government transparency, but rather to “tamp down some of the assassination conspiracy theories.

See Here

It is always astonishing to see one's fundamental beliefs corrected by the media.

Jim DiEugenio

Kennedy and Kings

Malcolm Perry lied to the Commission about the throat wound - From a newly released file

See Here

*The Journal follows the tenets of the Creative Commons Attribution License providing open access to scholars through the use of a Digital Objective Identifier (DOI) by Google Scholar.

Malcolm Perry

Malcolm Perry

Furthur Update on Malcolm Perry's lie (about the throat wound) to the Commission...

See Here

Of course the throat wound was an entry (perhaps a glass shard from the windshield?):The loyalists' persistent claim that ER doctors consistently misinterpret wounds (e.g., entrance vs. exit) cleverly evades these facts:

1. Such a tiny wound could not be duplicated in experiments by the Commission;

2. Milton Helpern, who had done 60,000 autopsies, had never seen an exit wound that small;

3. Before political leverage was exerted, the NPIC's first scenario included a throat shot at Z-190;

4. During a Commission Executive Session (December 18, 1963), John McCloy, Hale Boggs, and Gerald Ford actually discussed a possible frontal shot from the overpass.

For further details, see my discussion under the paragraph, "The Throat Wound," See Here

Malcolm Perry

Malcolm Perry

The link to my intended Mock Trail presentation is;

See Here

David Mantik

David Mantik

JFK HEAD WOUNDS

KINDLE EDITION

A Final Synthesis and a new analysis of the harper Fragment

UK Here

USA Here

Dr Mantik Book

Into Evidence: David Mantik

JFK Autopsy Materials: Forensic Medical Evidence Video

GO HERE

Dr Mantik video

SITE DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by [themantikview] and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this website.

Through this website you are able to link to other websites which are not under the control of [themantikview]. We have no control over the nature, content and availability of those sites. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.

Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, [themantikview] takes no responsibility for, and will not be liable for, the website being temporarily unavailable due to technical issues beyond our control.