Autopsy Images
The autopsy images appear to show a large hole at the FRONT of Kennedy's head, which is at extreme odds with the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda autopsy witnesses who described no such hole, but instead described a hole at the BACK of Kennedy's head. Altered autopsy images would explain this discrepancy. And I contend that is exactly what happened--that the autopsy images were altered.
The autopsy images appear to show a large hole at the FRONT of Kennedy's head, which is at extreme odds with the Parkland Hospital and Bethesda autopsy witnesses who described no such hole, but instead described a hole at the BACK of Kennedy's head. Altered autopsy images would explain this discrepancy. And I contend that is exactly what happened--that the autopsy images were altered.
-----
The Images
There are two main problems with the autopsy images:
There are two main problems with the autopsy images:
- They appear to show a front of the head blow-out, implying a shot from the rear, whereas the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses reported a back of the head blow-out. Moreover, the apparent bullet fragment trail seen in the lateral image is too high in the head for it to have occurred from either an EOP entrance (per the autopsy report) or the "cowlick" entrance (per the HSCA).
- They appear to show an intact back of the head, whereas the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses reported a large blow-out hole at the back of the head, especially in the occipital area.
All these witnesses place the blow-out hole at the back of the head. None of them indicated a front of the head blow-out.
Groden's collage of "back of the head" blow-out witnesses, indicating where they saw a large wound.
In a documentary aired in 2025, "What the Doctors Saw," a group of Parkland Hospital physicians who attended Kennedy in Trauma Room One reiterated that the large wound was at the rear of the head. One noted "lacerations" (tears) that extended to the front of the scalp, but not missing bone. See my article at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/what-the-doctors-saw----evidence-of-image-alteration.html.
And, indeed, if one looks at the unenhanced X-ray images buried in the HSCA documents, the captions describe them as showing the "occipital defect"--in other words, the hole at the back of the head:
And, indeed, if one looks at the unenhanced X-ray images buried in the HSCA documents, the captions describe them as showing the "occipital defect"--in other words, the hole at the back of the head:
The occiput is at the back of the head, and an "occipital defect" is medical-speak for "hole at the back of the head." The "original" images (before the "computer enhancement" renderings, are closer to the truth of what happened, but still have authenticity issues (i.e., Mantik's "White Patch" and the "Fake 6.5mm object"). There are more reasons to question the authenticity of these images than Custer and Reine's assertions, as I discuss in my article at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/autopsy-images.html. This article is a sort of basic introduction to that one.
Could so many witnesses have been mistaken about where the blow-out hole was located? I doubt it.
Could the images have been altered from what they originally showed? The answer is, yes.
And when the men who took the X-rays and some of the autopsy pictures declare the publicly available ones to be "fake" and "phony, and not the pictures we took," I think it's time to pay attention.
Could so many witnesses have been mistaken about where the blow-out hole was located? I doubt it.
Could the images have been altered from what they originally showed? The answer is, yes.
And when the men who took the X-rays and some of the autopsy pictures declare the publicly available ones to be "fake" and "phony, and not the pictures we took," I think it's time to pay attention.
-----
Authenticity Problems
The first order of business is the authentication of the X-rays. And that authentication is extremely problematic.
I previously used the Vanity Fair article from December, 1994 to quote Jerrol Custer and Floyd Reine as disavowing the autopsy images as "fake" and "phony" and "not the pictures we took." I now have a better source for the quotes--the original AP wire regarding a press conference featuring X-ray technician Jerrol Custer and photographer Floyd Reine,, found on https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jul/30/2002816967/-1/-1/0/JFK00011.PDF that Vanity Fair used for its source quotes. Specifically, Custer said that there was "no damage" at the front of the head or face, adding that "These are fake X-rays." Photographer Floyd Reibe, who took pictures of the body during the autopsy, claims that the photographs released by the government are "phony and not the photographs we took."
Here is the Reuter's wire from that news conference:
The first order of business is the authentication of the X-rays. And that authentication is extremely problematic.
I previously used the Vanity Fair article from December, 1994 to quote Jerrol Custer and Floyd Reine as disavowing the autopsy images as "fake" and "phony" and "not the pictures we took." I now have a better source for the quotes--the original AP wire regarding a press conference featuring X-ray technician Jerrol Custer and photographer Floyd Reine,, found on https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jul/30/2002816967/-1/-1/0/JFK00011.PDF that Vanity Fair used for its source quotes. Specifically, Custer said that there was "no damage" at the front of the head or face, adding that "These are fake X-rays." Photographer Floyd Reibe, who took pictures of the body during the autopsy, claims that the photographs released by the government are "phony and not the photographs we took."
Here is the Reuter's wire from that news conference:
This image was posted by Ken Lee on the JFK Assassination Facebook forum after apparently finding it in another group, posted by one Athan xanthin. I don't know the bona fides of the image, but it was apparently part of documents released in 2025, and refers to the Press Conference that the Reuter's wire got their information from. The description reads:
Declassified 2025 file shows that Two U.S. Navy medical technicians who witnessed JFKs autopsy claim that the released photos and X-rays showing the wounds on JFK were falsified and tampered with. They were threatened by Military admirals to keep their mouths shut or face prison.
Declassified 2025 file shows that Two U.S. Navy medical technicians who witnessed JFKs autopsy claim that the released photos and X-rays showing the wounds on JFK were falsified and tampered with. They were threatened by Military admirals to keep their mouths shut or face prison.
The only news media I'm aware of that reported on the fake autopssy images was Vanity Fair:
So, people who were there at the autopsy, who took the X-rays and some of the pictures, claim that the extant pictures are "fake" and "phony, and not the pictures we took."
That raises some serious questions of just how authentic the extant images are. When the people who took the X-rays and some of the autopsy photographs denounce the publicly available images as "fake" and "phony, and not the pictures we took," I think it's time to pay attention.
That raises some serious questions of just how authentic the extant images are. When the people who took the X-rays and some of the autopsy photographs denounce the publicly available images as "fake" and "phony, and not the pictures we took," I think it's time to pay attention.
-----
Mantik/Chesser Observations
Dr. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., addresses this problem extensively in his work. Dr. Mantik is both a physicist and medical doctor by education and training, and an oncology radiologist by trade--meaning he studies X-rays for a living, specifically related to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. He received permission from the Kennedy family to view the X-rays first-hand in the Archives. He did this with his own eyes as well as the aid of an optical densitometry machine, which measures the amount of light passing through a specific section of an X-ray, and came to the conclusion that...the X-rays are not authentic. They've been altered.
Dr. Mantik's website at https://themantikview.org contains numerous articles about his observations of the X-rays and his other works. (Scroll down to the bottom for links.) I recommend watching his video linked as "A Detailed Study of My JFK X-ray Findings" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw2JtxQ4a0A . Although the video is unedited, about 2 hours long, and contains many starts, stops, and re-takes, it contains some information in addition to his observations on the autopsy X-rays (such as his observations on the Zapruder Film from a physicist's point of view). It also contains a brief discussion, at the end, about the "debris halo" from the second head shot, which indicates that blood and fluids would have had time to accumulate in the brain cavity after the first shot in order to create that halo effect. Dr. Mantik's view of Zapruder Film alteration only seems to go as far as excising, say, 2 out of every 3 frames of the head shot, thus speeding up and creating the "back, and to the left" head snap, but his remarks are well worth listening to.
Among Dr. Mantik's observations about the autopsy X-rays are:
Dr. Mantik's work was largely corroborated by neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser, who also viewed the "original" X-rays in the Archives. Dr. Chesser added a few additional observations indicating alteration forgery. See "A Review of the JFK Cranial X-Rays and Photographs" at https://www.kennedysandking.com/news-items/682
However, there are a few things that those of us who do not have access to the Archives can see for ourselves, in the HSCA documents themselves.
Dr. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., addresses this problem extensively in his work. Dr. Mantik is both a physicist and medical doctor by education and training, and an oncology radiologist by trade--meaning he studies X-rays for a living, specifically related to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. He received permission from the Kennedy family to view the X-rays first-hand in the Archives. He did this with his own eyes as well as the aid of an optical densitometry machine, which measures the amount of light passing through a specific section of an X-ray, and came to the conclusion that...the X-rays are not authentic. They've been altered.
Dr. Mantik's website at https://themantikview.org contains numerous articles about his observations of the X-rays and his other works. (Scroll down to the bottom for links.) I recommend watching his video linked as "A Detailed Study of My JFK X-ray Findings" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw2JtxQ4a0A . Although the video is unedited, about 2 hours long, and contains many starts, stops, and re-takes, it contains some information in addition to his observations on the autopsy X-rays (such as his observations on the Zapruder Film from a physicist's point of view). It also contains a brief discussion, at the end, about the "debris halo" from the second head shot, which indicates that blood and fluids would have had time to accumulate in the brain cavity after the first shot in order to create that halo effect. Dr. Mantik's view of Zapruder Film alteration only seems to go as far as excising, say, 2 out of every 3 frames of the head shot, thus speeding up and creating the "back, and to the left" head snap, but his remarks are well worth listening to.
Among Dr. Mantik's observations about the autopsy X-rays are:
- a fake "white patch" added to the lateral X-ray. This area is so white that it would indicate solid bone from one side of the head to the other. (Decades later, when X-ray technician Jerrol Custer viewed the X-rays in a recorded interview, thought was a "double density" chunk of bone that had blown from the front of the head towards the hole he remembered at the back of the head, from a frontal shot. This was apparently before he eventually told Vanity Fair that "These are fake X-rays.")
- a fake 6.5 mm object in the AP (Anterior-Posterior, or front-to-back) X-ray, superimposed over an authentic crescent-shaped metallic fragment. Mantik thought that the authentic fragment was embedded at the back of the head. However, as will be seen, it was actually embedded at the front of the head, right by the forehead entry location above the right eye. (His thinking that it was at the back of the head is apparently due largely to the "computer-assisted" X-ray image showing the sella turcica and other features indicating that it is a right lateral image, with the face on the right. As will be seen, the facial features were actually on the left side of the original "un-enhanced" image, which was superimposed over the pre-mortem "living" X-ray to create a fake "right lateral" X-ray image, and the "white patch" hides the facial features rather than the hole at the back of the head, as Dr. Mantik originally surmised.
- Other authenticity issues such as a fake "burn mark" that occurs on the interior layer of film rather than on the external laminate layer--a physical impossibility.
Dr. Mantik's work was largely corroborated by neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser, who also viewed the "original" X-rays in the Archives. Dr. Chesser added a few additional observations indicating alteration forgery. See "A Review of the JFK Cranial X-Rays and Photographs" at https://www.kennedysandking.com/news-items/682
However, there are a few things that those of us who do not have access to the Archives can see for ourselves, in the HSCA documents themselves.
-----
HSCA-Published X-Rays
The "original" (if one can call it that, since it still contains Mantik's "white patch") UN-enhanced lateral X-ray is not easily found online, but is buried in the HSCA documents at:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060b.htm
It's important to note that a lateral X-ray does not distinguish between the near side of the image and the far side of the image, but rather smushes both together into a 2-dimensional picture. To get the sense of right vs left, an AP (Anterior-Posterior, or front-to-back) view is required. The AP view likewise smushes front of the head and back of the head together into a 2-dimensional picture, but does distinguish right vs. left. That's why two views (lateral and AP) are always necessary to get a sense of where things are in X-ray space.
The HSCA lateral UNenhanced X-ray contains a few pieces of overlooked information:
The HSCA documents never specify whether this is the "right" lateral image or the "left" lateral image.
I believe it is the left lateral, which X-ray technician Jerrol Custer said he was able to "just barely" get. Note that with the absence of facial features, it is impossible to determine from the X-ray itself whether it is "right" or "left," which is why an AP (Anterior-Posterior) view is also made. More on the missing "facial features" in a moment.
Here is the HSCA "un-enhanced" lateral X-ray, with its original caption:
The "original" (if one can call it that, since it still contains Mantik's "white patch") UN-enhanced lateral X-ray is not easily found online, but is buried in the HSCA documents at:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060b.htm
It's important to note that a lateral X-ray does not distinguish between the near side of the image and the far side of the image, but rather smushes both together into a 2-dimensional picture. To get the sense of right vs left, an AP (Anterior-Posterior, or front-to-back) view is required. The AP view likewise smushes front of the head and back of the head together into a 2-dimensional picture, but does distinguish right vs. left. That's why two views (lateral and AP) are always necessary to get a sense of where things are in X-ray space.
The HSCA lateral UNenhanced X-ray contains a few pieces of overlooked information:
- The information (e.g., the sella turcica) used to orient the image as a "right" lateral X-ray in the "computer-assisted" version) are not actually visible in the base "un-enhanced" image upon which the "computer assisted" version is purportedly based.
- The original HSCA caption describes it as showing the "occipital defect"--which is medical-speak for "hole at the back of the head."
- Note the stuff at the bottom of the image--the spinal column and the two mastoid processes on either side of it, which are cropped out of the "computer assisted" image.
The HSCA documents never specify whether this is the "right" lateral image or the "left" lateral image.
I believe it is the left lateral, which X-ray technician Jerrol Custer said he was able to "just barely" get. Note that with the absence of facial features, it is impossible to determine from the X-ray itself whether it is "right" or "left," which is why an AP (Anterior-Posterior) view is also made. More on the missing "facial features" in a moment.
Here is the HSCA "un-enhanced" lateral X-ray, with its original caption:
The original HSCA published X-ray, with its original caption, describing it as "showing the occipital defect."
Oh, and by the way, the caption on the HSCA-published AP X-ray also describes it as showing the "occipital defect," which is medical-speak for "hole at the back of the head:
The HSCA-published AP (Anterior-Posterior, or front-to-back) X-ray, found at https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0060a.htm, with caption annotated.
But let's return to the lateral X=ray. If you orient the lateral X-ray image so that the black area, the "defect" or "hole" is in the occipital region of the head as the caption describes, it would put the face towards the lower-left corner of the image--which is right where radiologist Dr. David Mantik describes the impossibly white "white patch." So while Dr. Chesser believed the dark area was "blackened to hide the facial features," I actually contend that the facial features were "whited out."
Here is my annotated version showing how this X-ray should be oriented (the lower part of the hole is where the Harper fragment, which ejected with the second head shot [AR-15 slam-fire shot] eventually came out.:
Here is my annotated version showing how this X-ray should be oriented (the lower part of the hole is where the Harper fragment, which ejected with the second head shot [AR-15 slam-fire shot] eventually came out.:
Note that neither Dr. Mantik nor Dr. Chesser was of the opinion that the X-ray images they viewed at NARA were "original" unaltered X-rays.
Note that two pages after the (un-enhanced) lateral X-ray image is presented in the HSCA documents, we find the so-called "computer assisted" or "computer enhanced" version of this lateral X-ray--the one everyone can easily find online--and now, all of the sudden, we have some features that were not visible in the original "un-enhanced" image. We also have an important part--specifically, the bottom of the "un-enhanced" original image--that is cropped off, so we no longer see the spinal column or the mastoid processes. One of the new things we can see, not visible in the original image, in in the middle of the dark area, where we now see a sickle-shaped feature, called the sella turcica. And on the right-most edge, we now see see some better-defined shapes that were not visible in the original.
Here is the "computer-assisted" version of "a lateral X-ray," supposedly a more highly defined version of the above X-ray:
Note that two pages after the (un-enhanced) lateral X-ray image is presented in the HSCA documents, we find the so-called "computer assisted" or "computer enhanced" version of this lateral X-ray--the one everyone can easily find online--and now, all of the sudden, we have some features that were not visible in the original "un-enhanced" image. We also have an important part--specifically, the bottom of the "un-enhanced" original image--that is cropped off, so we no longer see the spinal column or the mastoid processes. One of the new things we can see, not visible in the original image, in in the middle of the dark area, where we now see a sickle-shaped feature, called the sella turcica. And on the right-most edge, we now see see some better-defined shapes that were not visible in the original.
Here is the "computer-assisted" version of "a lateral X-ray," supposedly a more highly defined version of the above X-ray:
The sella turcica and those more highly defined areas on the lower-right corner of the image now help us orient the face, because the lower-right corner area now looks like sinus cavities, and the sella turcica especially tells us which way front is--and it's not to the lower-left, as we would assume from the "occipital defect" caption in the original "un-enhanced" image, but now the face is on the lower-right.
Neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser has described the sella turcica on this image as being "too large." In fact, he describes the apparent bullet fragment trail as being "too high" for either the autopsy doctors' "EOP" entry location or the HSCA "cowlick" entry location. (more on that, in a moment.)
Interestingly, the HSCA also published, on the page immediately following this "computer-assisted" image, a "pre-mortem" lateral X-ray of Kennedy's head, taken when he was alive. And here's where things get even a bit more interesting...
Neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser has described the sella turcica on this image as being "too large." In fact, he describes the apparent bullet fragment trail as being "too high" for either the autopsy doctors' "EOP" entry location or the HSCA "cowlick" entry location. (more on that, in a moment.)
Interestingly, the HSCA also published, on the page immediately following this "computer-assisted" image, a "pre-mortem" lateral X-ray of Kennedy's head, taken when he was alive. And here's where things get even a bit more interesting...
If we compare the "pre-mortem" or "living" X-ray with the "computer-assisted" X-ray, we find a lot of similarities, landmarks that are exactly the same in both images, as if these X-rays were taken at exactly the same angle, from exactly the same distance, etc. In fact, I created a video overlaying the "computer-assisted" X-ray with the "living" X-ray to point out those similarities, and posted it on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-CWAX__s10 where you can see how those landmarks line up exactly. The shape of the head, the sella turcica, and other landmarks align exactly.
However, when you overlay the "computer-assisted" lateral X-ray with the original "un-enhanced" lateral X-ray, as I did (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92zCVZuJUWw for an overlay comparison of all three X-rays), much of that correspondence disappears. In fact, I had to do no stretching or re-sizing at all to get the "computer-assisted" image to align perfectly with the "living" X-ray. However, I did have to "stretch" the "un-enhanced" autopsy image in various dimensions to get the metallic fragments to align with the "computer-assisted" image, but no matter how I re-sized, stretched, adjusted, if I got one aspect of the un-enhanced X-ray to align with the same aspect in the "computer-assisted" X-ray, correspondence in other aspects was completely lost! And this is supposed to be the same X-ray!
You might be able to see what I'm talking about if you take a close look at the three X-rays side-by-side. Note the more "rounded" shape of the skull in the "un-enhanced" image on the right, than to the slightly more "squashed" shape of the skull in the "computer-assisted" image in the center, or the pre-mortem "living" X-ray on the left:
However, when you overlay the "computer-assisted" lateral X-ray with the original "un-enhanced" lateral X-ray, as I did (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92zCVZuJUWw for an overlay comparison of all three X-rays), much of that correspondence disappears. In fact, I had to do no stretching or re-sizing at all to get the "computer-assisted" image to align perfectly with the "living" X-ray. However, I did have to "stretch" the "un-enhanced" autopsy image in various dimensions to get the metallic fragments to align with the "computer-assisted" image, but no matter how I re-sized, stretched, adjusted, if I got one aspect of the un-enhanced X-ray to align with the same aspect in the "computer-assisted" X-ray, correspondence in other aspects was completely lost! And this is supposed to be the same X-ray!
You might be able to see what I'm talking about if you take a close look at the three X-rays side-by-side. Note the more "rounded" shape of the skull in the "un-enhanced" image on the right, than to the slightly more "squashed" shape of the skull in the "computer-assisted" image in the center, or the pre-mortem "living" X-ray on the left:
So what does all that mean? It means that the "computer-assisted" image is actually a composite image of the pre-mortem "living" X-ray on the left, and the "un-enhanced" autopsy image on the right.
Which is not to say that the "un-enhanced" autopsy image is entirely authentic. Dr. Mantik's "white patch" is still there. The "black hole" (which Dr. Chesser describes as having "blacked out" the facial features) is actually the occipital hole, but may have undergone a little dark room editing when the "white patch" was added. But instead of hiding the hole in the occiput, as Dr. Mantik theorized, the "white patch" is actually hiding the facial features (sinuses and orbits) rather than the hole at the back of the head described by all the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses.
Which is not to say that the "un-enhanced" autopsy image is entirely authentic. Dr. Mantik's "white patch" is still there. The "black hole" (which Dr. Chesser describes as having "blacked out" the facial features) is actually the occipital hole, but may have undergone a little dark room editing when the "white patch" was added. But instead of hiding the hole in the occiput, as Dr. Mantik theorized, the "white patch" is actually hiding the facial features (sinuses and orbits) rather than the hole at the back of the head described by all the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses.
-----
Autopsy Pictures
In addition to noting the "anomalies," if one wants to call them that, indicating that the autopsy X-rays were altered, Dr. Mantik also notes that the purported autopsy photographs were also altered. Mantik doesn't spend a lot of time discussing the front of the head photographs, other than to note the disagreement between what they show and what the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses reported. However, he does go into some detail regarding the back of the head autopsy photographs. Mantik took a stereoscopic viewer with him to the Archives, and studied matched pairs of photographs (that is, nearly identical pairs of photographs) using that stereoscopic viewer. A stereoscopic viewer is not a complex piece of equipment, and in fact, some children have constructed them (e.g., one of the "Tinker Crate" kits), for school science fairs, or whatever. By focusing one eye on one image and the other eye on a nearly identical image taken from a slightly different perspective, the flat 2D images take on a 3-dimensional appearance.
Specifically, Mantik notes that while some of the back-of-the-head image areas appear to be 3D, consistent with actual autopsy images, there is one area that appears 2D, as if the same exact image had been pasted into that area of both photographs. This two-dimensional appearance of the back of the head is an indication that the images are not authentic, that hair and scalp had been composited into the photographs at that location.
The fact that the back of the head autopsy images fail the stereoscopic viewing test fits with what White House photographer Robert Knudsen told his family before he passed away. Knudsen told his family that "hair" had been "drawn in" the autopsy photographs, and the family relayed this information to the ARRB in their recorded interview. (The Knudsen family's ARRB interviews can be found on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website at https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/ARRB_Medical_Interviews.html)
In addition to noting the "anomalies," if one wants to call them that, indicating that the autopsy X-rays were altered, Dr. Mantik also notes that the purported autopsy photographs were also altered. Mantik doesn't spend a lot of time discussing the front of the head photographs, other than to note the disagreement between what they show and what the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses reported. However, he does go into some detail regarding the back of the head autopsy photographs. Mantik took a stereoscopic viewer with him to the Archives, and studied matched pairs of photographs (that is, nearly identical pairs of photographs) using that stereoscopic viewer. A stereoscopic viewer is not a complex piece of equipment, and in fact, some children have constructed them (e.g., one of the "Tinker Crate" kits), for school science fairs, or whatever. By focusing one eye on one image and the other eye on a nearly identical image taken from a slightly different perspective, the flat 2D images take on a 3-dimensional appearance.
Specifically, Mantik notes that while some of the back-of-the-head image areas appear to be 3D, consistent with actual autopsy images, there is one area that appears 2D, as if the same exact image had been pasted into that area of both photographs. This two-dimensional appearance of the back of the head is an indication that the images are not authentic, that hair and scalp had been composited into the photographs at that location.
The fact that the back of the head autopsy images fail the stereoscopic viewing test fits with what White House photographer Robert Knudsen told his family before he passed away. Knudsen told his family that "hair" had been "drawn in" the autopsy photographs, and the family relayed this information to the ARRB in their recorded interview. (The Knudsen family's ARRB interviews can be found on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website at https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/ARRB_Medical_Interviews.html)
Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic viewing of back of the head autopsy images revealed a flat, 2-dimensional area at the back of the head indicating alteration. The Knudsen family revealed that White House photographer Robert Knudsen told them that hair had been "drawn in" to the autopsy photographs.
Navy Corpsman Saundra Kay Spencer testified to the ARRB that there was "no correspondence" between the autopsy images she processed in 1963 (apparently for distribution among top-brass at the time), and the autopsy images provided to her in her deposition. Specifically, she did not see all the damage on Kennedy's head that the extant images appear to show. Spencer reconciled the differences, at least in her own mind, by suggesting that perhaps the 1963 images she saw had been taken after "extensive reconstruction" had taken place.
The other possibility, which apparently did not occur to Ms. Spencer, was that the photographs themselves had been altered.
You can find Ms. Spencer's ARRB deposition (along with the Knudsen family's, Jerrol Custer's [you can hear him describing the bullet that fell out of the back in his own voice, reel 1 side 2 05:18, and reel 2 side 1 03:30], and other depositions) here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/ARRB_Medical_Interviews.html
The other possibility, which apparently did not occur to Ms. Spencer, was that the photographs themselves had been altered.
You can find Ms. Spencer's ARRB deposition (along with the Knudsen family's, Jerrol Custer's [you can hear him describing the bullet that fell out of the back in his own voice, reel 1 side 2 05:18, and reel 2 side 1 03:30], and other depositions) here: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/ARRB_Medical_Interviews.html
-----
Conclusions
The widely found "computer-assisted" or "computer-enhanced" lateral X-ray image, purporting to be the "right" lateral X-ray, is actually a composite of the "pre-mortem" or "living" X-ray, and the left lateral X-ray showing the "occipital defect" at the back of the head--right where all those Parkland and Bethesda witnesses describe the hole at the back of Kennedy's head. Dr. Mantik's "White Patch"--rather than hiding the occipital blow-out--actually hides the facial features (orbits and sinuses) that would otherwise have been visible and would have helped orient the X-ray correctly.
I posted the animation from my documentary, demonstrating how the un-enhanced left lateral X-ray actually shows the back-of-the-head blow-out on YouTube, "JFK Lateral Xray Animation" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKlbuP3uCuA. Please watch it, as it demonstrates visually what I am trying to explain in words.
And as for that bullet fragment trail that is "too high" to be from either an EOP or "cowlick" entrance--it's just the right height to be from the forehead entry location described by Dr. Charles Crenshaw, if one orients the front of the head at the lower left in the original "un-enhanced" autopsy image.
The widely found "computer-assisted" or "computer-enhanced" lateral X-ray image, purporting to be the "right" lateral X-ray, is actually a composite of the "pre-mortem" or "living" X-ray, and the left lateral X-ray showing the "occipital defect" at the back of the head--right where all those Parkland and Bethesda witnesses describe the hole at the back of Kennedy's head. Dr. Mantik's "White Patch"--rather than hiding the occipital blow-out--actually hides the facial features (orbits and sinuses) that would otherwise have been visible and would have helped orient the X-ray correctly.
I posted the animation from my documentary, demonstrating how the un-enhanced left lateral X-ray actually shows the back-of-the-head blow-out on YouTube, "JFK Lateral Xray Animation" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKlbuP3uCuA. Please watch it, as it demonstrates visually what I am trying to explain in words.
And as for that bullet fragment trail that is "too high" to be from either an EOP or "cowlick" entrance--it's just the right height to be from the forehead entry location described by Dr. Charles Crenshaw, if one orients the front of the head at the lower left in the original "un-enhanced" autopsy image.