Posted on 11/30/2003 10:28:12 PM PST by whammerjammer
Second, the x-ray "triple exposure" business. The first issue here is that the printed x-rays are non-diagnostic for reasons I don't feel like typing in their entirety. I have seen some pretty bizarre looking results from double-exposed film. I can't completely confirm or deny the possibility based on these reprints. Having said that, there are immediately obvious errors in the post that I will point out below. The statement " Either something is terribly wrong or JFK was the only person to have TWO SINUS CAVITIES. immediately disqualifies the author as having any clue as to what he is discussing.
Most people have 2 maxillary sinuses, 2 frontal sinuses and a sphenoid sinus (which can be septated and counted as either 1 or 2.) That makes at least 5 major sinus cavities. (This is probably just casual misspeak on this author's part, but does indicate a remarkable lack basic understanding.)
"The outer edges of the sinus cavity outlined in red indicate the typical A-P view"
This statement is a complete falsehood. The red lines on this image are along the inner table of the skull of the left temporopareital region and what remains of the right temporoparietal region. Although the author of this "research" ambiguously states "sinuses" (not otherwise specifying which sinus), he must be referring to the frontal sinuses. Unfortunately, the frontal sinuses project NOWHERE near that far lateral when seen on an AP film. He is just wrong.
Finally his referencing Dr. David Mantik made me chuckle. I watched Dr. Mantik commit credibility suicide last month at the JFK Assassination Symposium at DuQuesne University. Dr. Rhone (?sp.) (also a conspiracy theorist/bookseller) was the first speaker of the day. He spent an hour describing the chain of custody of the Zapruder film. The fact that 2 additional copies where immediately made and all went separate ways. He described the extraordinarily difficult process of altering a film (blowing up each frame, handpainting to look the way you want, rephotographing and reducing and then recreating the movie film.) Not to mention that it would be impossible to know which camera would be the critical one to alter the film from (there where something like 75 cameras in Dealey plaza.) It was a very convincing lecture.
At the end of the day Dr. Mantik took the podium. At the end of his lecture he showed the original Mary Mooreman photo, and one taken from the same location by the Discovery Channel by the same type of camera. The field-of-view of the 2 photos was slightly different. With this evidence Dr. Mantik concluded that "Mary Mooreman was actually in Elm street when she took her photo, although the Zapruder film shows her on the grass. This proves the Zapruder film is a fake." The response of the thousand- or-so attendants who just hours before had been demonstrably convinced of the Zapruder film authenticity was stunded silence. The air was one of "Dr. Mantik, you should have been here for the first lecture!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.