Articles and Research on the JFK Assassination by David W. Mantik M.D, Ph.D.
About Dr. David Mantik
David W. Mantik, MD, PhD 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 40 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). In 1993, he visited the National Archives on four separate days to examine the autopsy X-rays and photographs. Altogether he has visited nine times over multiple years. Whilst there he 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. In principle, by using thousands of such points, a three-dimensional topographic map of the X-rays could be constructed. 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 struck the film.
Such a map would be much richer in its details. For a normal human skull, the range of peaks and valleys on such a map should fall within a well-defined range. Any exceptional values—and especially those that lay unnaturally far outside would raise questions of authenticity. Based on three powerful clues from the extant autopsy X-rays at NARA, this data shows 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. For further discussion, see his e-book, JFK’s Head Wounds.
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 subconsciously are afraid of 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.
On April 29, my attorney Dan Hardway filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review my case, Morley v. CIA. When I filed this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit 16 years ago, I sought certain files related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Perhaps the biggest single revelation generated by Morley v. CIA was the medal given to Joannides. Inside the agency, one might say that Joannides protected the agency’s “sources and methods” around the Oswald/AMSPELL/FPCC operation. Outside the agency, you could say he was honored, at least in part, for perpetuating the JFK cover-up. House Select Committee on Assassination general counsel G. Robert Blakey, now emeritus professor at Notre Dame law school, told PBS Frontline that Joannides had obstructed Congress’ investigation, a felony. Was he concealing the existence of a CIA operation to falsely blame Oswald for killing JFK? Or just CIA incompetence? Absent full disclosure, definitive conclusions are elusive. Morley v. CIA fell short of getting the whole story. The agency identified but never released 330 Joannides files I sought. These include 44 documents from 1963 and 1978, which concern Joannides’ cover and “intelligence methods.” They are key to the JFK story. I suspect they identify the senior agency officers who authorized psychological warfare operations that linked Oswald to Castro’s Cuba before and after JFK was killed. According to the agency, not a single word contained in these antique records – even with any potentially appropriate redactions for sources and methods – can be made public in 2019 without threatening “national security.” Given that most of the records in question are more than 50 years old, the claim seems far-fetched, if not suspicious. Nonetheless, the federal courts agree it is accurate. ‘Entirely Unreasonable’ The question now before the Supreme Court is not conspiracy. The issue is accountability and how the FOIA seeks to insure it. In the July 2018 majority opinion, Kavanaugh ruled the CIA acted “reasonably” in spurning my JFK queries. Judge Henderson countered that the government’s actions were “entirely unreasonable” and I should be awarded court costs. The high court now has the opportunity to decide. The answers are a long time coming. By Jefferson Morley April 30, 2019 See Here
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. It is always astonishing to see one's fundamental beliefs corrected by the media. See Here
Dr. Malcolm Perry
Malcolm Perry lied to the Commission about the throat wound - From a newly released file. *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. See Here Further 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