JFK autopsy photo may have been faked, says Jim Marrs

JFK mystery image
The vertical arrow points to a bullet fragment not found in JFK’s autopsy

“According to investigative journalist Jim Marrs, a new study of JFK’s autopsy reveals falsification of X-ray evidence. Marrs, author of the best-selling book, “Crossfire,” claims that the famous bullet fragment depicted in the autopsy X-ray is an artifact superimposed on the X-ray after JFK’s autopsy.

The X-ray fabrication, which could not have been done without the knowledge of high-level federal officials, was the topic of a recent paper by Dr David Mantik published in Medical Research Archives, an international journal with a focus on new research.”

One name jumped out at me in this story from the Australian National Review.

Larry Sturdivan, ballistics consultant to the House Select Commission on Assassinations, studied the fragment dubbed “the most curious and unsolved mystery in the history of diagnostic radiology” and concluded it could not be metal, according to Marrs.

Although the HSCA had relied on the fragment’s authenticity as key evidence in connecting the bullet piece to Oswald, Sturdivan was not convinced that the piece he was examining was a cross-section from the interior of a bullet.

So what was it?

Source: Kennedy autopsy report may have been faked.

Download Mantik’s paper:The Saga of the Largest ‘Metallic Fragment’

31 thoughts on “JFK autopsy photo may have been faked, says Jim Marrs”

  1. Just think, two guys who ran opposite each other for President, JFK and Nixon, were removed from office by the CIA and then the head of that organization, down the road, becomes President. This is the country foreigners scramble to believing we are a free, just country?

  2. Geez. The so-called 6.5 mm fragment was not 6.5 mm, and was not on the back of Kennedy’s head. It was the largest fragment removed during the autopsy, removed from behind Kennedy’s right eye. Mantik, in order to hide this from his readers (and perhaps even himself) has long claimed the fragment removed at autopsy was removed from the middle of Kennedy’s forehead, and that all those in attendance at the autopsy claiming this fragment was removed from behind the eye (which is everyone involved in the removal or collection of the fragment) are wrong. Now ain’t that a coinkydink? The x-rays show a large fragment behind the eye. The witnesses say this fragment was removed at autopsy. But Mantik insists the fragment removed at autopsy was removed from the middle of the forehead, even though he admits the fragment in the archives bears no resemblance whatsoever to the fragment on the middle of the forehead in the x-rays. It’s thinking like this that gives the research community a bad name, IMO.

    1. Again, I agree with Pat Speer on this matter. Mantik’s “analysis” is simply pseudoscience as far as I am concerned.
      It should be reminded that ALL of the doctors involved with Kennedy’s body insisted the wound was in the occipital parietal, this is not the occipital protrusion which is much further down at the base of the skull.

      As Sherry Fiester proves by ballistic analysis, the bullet entered the skull at the left temple and drove a path from the temple back, causing an implosion of the liquefied brain matter that exploded the skull like a cracked egg. The eruption of this brain matter was through the right occipital parietal.

        1. “I’m pretty sure Sherry says the bullet entered the right side of Kennedy’s head, while it was turned to the left.”~Pat Speer

          The image at this link shows her analysis of the angle of Kennedy’s head at the time of the head shot:
          This can also be seen at my page on her work at:

        2. This illustration you will see (if you visit the page) is the product of Photogrammetry, which is the science of making measurements from photographs, especially for recovering the exact positions of surface points. Moreover, it may be used to recover the motion pathways of designated reference points located on any moving object, on its components and in the immediately adjacent environment.
          See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogrammetry

      1. “Sherry Feister proves by ballistic analysis…” Quite frankly that is blatantly untrue. At best, she has given only a reasonable speculation. She did not have access to the blood spattered limo and the film and photographic record is at best nebulous. As a longtime researcher, more than four decades, who does not believe that Oswald killed JFK it is embarrassing to read self appointed “experts” who have read a few books and watched a few YouTube videos cavilarly toss around words like “proves.” While I appreciate the enthusiasm, unequivocally stating such things plays right into the hands of the Lone Nut Trolls. It is unscientific and intellectually dishonest. Such sloppiness misinforms new students, and ultimately hurts the cause rather than helps it. Thank you!

        1. “Quite frankly that is blatantly untrue. At best, she has given only a reasonable speculation.”~John

          You are entitled to your opinion of course, but Ms Fiester gives a very detailed scientific forensic exposition of the ballistics of the head-shot. If you wish to prove her wrong, your simplistic generalizations here are inadequate.

          1. Willy, that is a nice spin attempt, but I actually have a high regard for Ms. Fiester’s work. I do not agree with everything she has put forth, as is the case with virtually every author, but as I said, she has put forth a reasonable hypothesis, based on the available evidence. That is not an attack on her or her work, but rather a compliment. I would also add that Ms. Fiester herself, in her book, qualifies her own work based on the fact that she did not, have access to the limo, the corpse, or original photos and videos. That is what an intellectually honest, scientific researcher does.

            My point was that you and far too many others self apponted experts seem predisposed to ad hominum “simplistic” analysis, and pontificate in definitive absolutes. You take the same unscientific unprovable liberties with the evidence that the Lone Nut Trolls do and it only muddies already murky water more.

            Like it or not, unless you were one of fhe conspirators in Dealey Plaza, you do not know, any more than the rest of us, for a definitive fact what happened and to act as though you do by engaging in prolific hyperbole, IMO is narcissism and does a disservice to new students, and ultimately John F. Kennedy himself.

            All that being said, I genuinely admire your enthusiam and your fearlessness in rebuting Lone Nut Trolls, and it is my fervent desire not to quash those traits of yours as they are much needed to bring JFK’s murderers to justice, but if we are to have any hope of doing so we must advocate within the confines of the available evidence and the rule of law. We cannot rail against the other side for spewing propaganda, by engaging in, albeit well intended, disinformation ourselves.

  3. I have a question? How does one reconcile the Altgens photo 6 with frame 260 of the Zapruder film. They appear to be showing the same thing from two different angles and two different places. The Altgen photo 6 shows Kennedy clutching his neck with Jackie’s hand on his arm. The limo has just tuned onto Elm St. and is about half way past the TSBD. Z frame 260 shows the same scene 35 frames past the Stemmons freeway sign. The Altgens photo first appeared on CBS news with Cronkite at 6:34 pm Friday, November 22, 1963. This is the famous Lovelady/Oswald figure in the TSBD doorway. Maybe someone with greater knowledge can help out.

  4. Clearly altered xray … squarish shading in the areas near the arrows unlike any other contrast and opacity in the X-ray. Are LNers blind?

    What’s the black circle almost directly on the same latitude to the left of the light blue arrow and meets at the same longitude of the red arrow?

  5. I just couldn’t resist.
    Marrs knows nothing about Radiology, autopsies or forensic medicine.
    Dr. Mantik might be a good radiation oncologist , but his paper reveals that his diagnostic radiology skills are limited. He seems to have forgotten that you can’t identify a bullet fragment from a modified Waters view alone.
    Sturdivan may have been a ballistics expert, but I doubt that he had any medical training and knew nothing about x-ray interpretation. However, he seem to have an accurate opinion about this ” fragment”. He was right. It is NOT metal.
    In 1955 JFK underwent a barbaric procedure that has since become rare (thanks to CT-scanning) called a myelogram. This procedure involved introducing contrast dye into the spinal canal via a lumbar puncture and following the course of the dye under fluoroscopy along the spine up toward communication with the base of the brain. The unusual situation with JFK is that he underwent this procedure TWICE, receiving twice the usual contrast load. Much of this contrast was retained, such that it was still visible on radiographs taken at autopsy.
    The Waters view is tilted, such that the object mentioned is most likely at the base of the skull; it is not visible on a lateral view, probably because it was less than a millimeter wide ( Mantik’s claim that the object is in the frontal bone table is nonsense).
    What it is is puddled retained contrast from 1955. It is not metal. It is not an object with substance. It may have been present in the same place prior to the assasination, although with disruption of the brain following the head shot it may well have extravasated out of the subdural space into the base of the skull while the body was supine in the 0neal casket.
    And this article is nothing but baloney.

    1. Holy smokes, Photon, you’ve become a full-on theorist, coming up with answers all your own that are totally at odds with all the “experts” to study the medical evidence, not to mention the historical record. The HSCA’s experts studied x-rays taken of Kennedy in 1960 and 1962, and even published one of these x-rays. It did not show “puddled contrast” on the back of his head. LOL.


      1. ” it may well have extravasated out of the subdural space while the body was supine in the ONeal casket.”
        The body wasn’t supine in a casket in 1960 or 1962. Nor had he a brain gunshot wound.
        In addition the body was in a Trendelenberg position during much of the resuscitative effort, promoting movement from the CSF toward the skull.
        JFK had enough residual contrast to still have easily visible collections on other post-mortem radiographs along the spine, despite being positioned for CSF flow to the brain, precisely toward where this “fragment” is noted. It explains why it is not visible in the lateral radiograph.
        It may have even puddled out in one of the ventricles, giving the rounded appearance of a drop.
        Two myelograms.

    2. So, Photon, you criticize Dr. Mantik’s credentials, along with Dr. Wecht and, I presume, Dr. McClelland.
      Are you a physician? Are you board certified in any specialty?

      And, if you agree that the 6.5 mm artifact is indeed an artifact, why did the House Committee in 1979 rely on this
      artifact to draw its conclusion that all successful shells were fired from the rear?

      The weight of the evidence is overwhelming for an occipital defect. And,therefore, that the autopsy photos and x-rays were tampered with. We know Mr. Johaniddes and his employer tampered with the committee’s original exhibits; it was reported in the WashPost in 1979. I have provided the cite previously.

    3. 1. This is not a Waters view, modified or otherwise. It is a straight anterior-posterior view, typical of post mortem xrays performed looking for metallic fragments following a gunshot death.
      2. “It may have been present in the same place”-see Pat Speer’s comments
      3. The hypothesis that previously injected intrathecal contrast migrated all the way from the inferior lumbar CSF to posterior skull to form a perfect 6.5 mm round circle in a person who was presumable shot with a 6.5 mm bullet is fantastic enough to warrant a certain amount of reasonable doubt.

    4. I’m sorry, Paul but what are you doing back on here? Aren’t you afraid you’ll be ‘censored’ again?

      And where is your apology to the hosts and everyone on this site for lying about your name being Paul May?

      1. Jefferson

        Are you seriously going to allow Photon back on here under that name when he has admitted he is “Paul May”?

        Please at least make him use his real name and a make an apology to JFKFacts and all the posters for lying.

        And the more abject the apology the better. 🙂

        1. Vanessa, regarding Photon/Paul May, for what it is worth, I feel the same way as you do, but Paul does make people hone their research and debate skills. IMO he has lost any moral authority that he may have once had amoung the more gullible individuals.

          Photon is a known quantity and if I may add he is a pretty good barometer, as he only seems to chime in, much like McAdams, whenever researchers start poking around the softest points of the Warren myth.

          As for an apology from him, is one owed, I think so, but I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for it, His MO has always been to disappear whenever his disinformation is revealed in threads and I can’t recall ever seeing any apologies or retractions from him previously.

          Besides the house of cards he so feverishly defends is soprecariously perched that he can’t concede a single point as the slighted breeze will topple the whole charade.

          He and others of his ilk are in an unenviable position. They are knowledge enough to know that the Warren Report is an indefensible myth and that history will not be kind to them for perpetuating the myth.

          Can you imagine staking your personal reputation on the Warren Myth? They MUST know they are Flat Earthers.

          I believe in the redemption of souls, I suggest giving him a chance. Maybe I’m wrong, but if so he will reveal himself soon enough. Besides I suspect he would just adopt a new alias, and start the same charade all over, were he not allowed to post openly and I suspect Mr. Morley has better things to do than police him.

          As an aside Vanessa, I would be remiss not to mention how much I have enjoyed and appreciate your posts. You are obviously very knowledge about the case and I particularly enjoy how you very firmly, but politely point out the more difficult posters blatant disinformation attempts. You are a true diplomat!

          And of course, thank you Mr. Morley for this site, your book, and your lawsuit and your continued service to our country!

          1. What disinformation? This whole line is based on a simple error-assuming that contrast left over from 2 well documented myelograms is a bullet fragment, when if it was it would have been visible on a lateral skull view.It isn’t.
            I have never claimed to be Paul May. I posted my name last year.

          2. Thanks John

            I also like the contestability Photon brings to the debate and, yes, we do all know he’s a paid up disinformation agent (allegedly).

            But I don’t think he should be allowed to post under the name “Photon” now we know he is Paul May. I also think he owes the site and posters an apology for lying about it.

            Surely, a short, sharp message from Mr Morley to Photon could clear that up?

            If Paul is allowed to post as Photon then my peaceful protest will be to assume a pseudonym to make a point. My new name will be “Fairy Floss”. 

            Thanks for those kind words John. I’m not that knowledgeable at all really. I just stick to a couple of small areas (PM, Z-film) and leave the rest to the experts. I think my patience is failing me (on another site) at the moment too.

            You are a lot more charitable to the LNers than me. I still cannot fathom how someone as smart as Photon can champion the unsupported conclusions of the WCR and still respect himself as an intelligent being. (And that’s not even addressing the moral issue of WCR support).

          3. Paul

            You have told us your first name is ‘Paul’ and your last name is ‘May’.

            How can you not be ‘Paul May’?

            Do you want me to post the links?

            So tell us what your name was last year then. For those that missed it.

    5. Mr/Ms Photon,

      It is of interest that you should single out Dr. Mantik for his ‘limited’ skills in diagnostic radiology when the interpretation of the 6.5mm object as a putative bullet was also shared by the many credentialed forensic pathologists on the Clark Panel and on the Forensic Pathology Panel of the HSCA. None of those other individuals, though, had Dr. Mantik’s presence of mind to acquire scientific measurements of the 6.5mm artifact to see if it was real.

      Having singled out for disparagement only David Mantik, which might leave the inattentive or unaware reader with the impression that Mantik’s opinion, rather than your own, is a idiosyncratic singleton, you proceed to postulate an unprecedented explanation of the radiopaque object: it is an ‘extravasated’ accumulation of a radiotracer that had been present in Kennedy’s brain for the prior 8 years. Mantik, as you know, has published his Optical Densitometric measurements taken on the radiopague object which you contend to be the residue of the myelogram. Even assuming that the myelogram fluid collected and concentrated in Kennedy’s postmortem brain in the very curious form you postulate, is there any way that the known attenuation at x-ray frequencies of your hypothesized dye could possibly accord with the radiopacity measurements published by Mantik? Or is your theory merely another instance of smoke being blown into the eyes of those who inquire into the disturbing truths of the most consequential political assassination in American history?

      Should, ‘Photon’, you really possess the credentials in forensic pathology (and ballistic physics, and radiological physics, etc) that you imply in your various postings, you would certainly qualify for access to the Kennedy autopsy materials now in the custody of NARA. Dr. Mantik has published 20 different aspects of his measurements and observations which individually and cumulatively impeach the authenticity of the extant autopsy material, and his measurements are now being validated by other independent observers. It would be quite interesting to see whether your own NARA observations and measurements would vary from Mantik’s (and now Mantik’s associates whose own direct access to the NARA materials affirms him). If a NARA trip somehow did disqualify Mantik’s seemingly damning observations and contradict Mantik’s equally damning measurements as fraudulent, you, Photon, would justifiably be the toast of the Lone Nut community. Until that time, it’s very hard to construe you, whoever you are, as anything other than a blower of smoke.

      1. Perhaps you could reference an article in a genuine Diagnostic Radiology journal where Dr. Mantik actually describes his ” densitometry ” technique. Or perhaps an article in a genuine journal that shows where his technique( what ever it may be) has been reproduced by a Radiologist, as Dr. Mantik is not one. I would say that your second paragraph sets up a narrative of how baseless Dr. Mantik’s assertions are and how they are regarded by actual board-certified radiologists. I refer you to the CTKA promoted ” peer reviewed” article that Dr. Mantik had published in a publication titled ” Medical Research Archives”.
        Now what is “Medical Research Archives” and what is its publication history? Why is its address listed as California and yet its phone number is for a Minneapolis area code? What is a “double -blinded peer review process” that it claims to utilize? Who are the “peers” that review this journal?
        The point is that Dr. Mantik has never been able to get his data published in any of the standard Radiology journals, simply because it is not recognized as valid by real experts, ie. editorial boards composed of the most prominent Radiologists in the country.
        The fact is that if you pay a fee you can get published in “Medical Research Archives”. That in itself rules it out as a serious medical or scientific publication.
        I am reminded of the acoustic expert touted on this site who posted a diploma-mill certificate on his website as evidence of his scholarship when anybody with a couple of hundred bucks could buy one , no strings-attached. The fact that Dr. Mantik would publish his data in such a journal and claim that it is a peer-reviewed medical journal leads me to question his level of scholarship , without even considering his radiographic interpretation skills.

  6. One of the most important things to know in JFK research is that the head x-rays as used by the Clark Panel were utterly faked. They were faked because Josiah Thompson’s Six Seconds in Dallas book had come out and an important topic of that was the blow out wound in the back of JFK’s head as described by so many witnesses.

    Thompson’s book came out in Jan, 1967: http://www.amazon.com/Six-Seconds-Dallas-Micro-Study-Assassination/dp/0394445716/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441915353&sr=8-1&keywords=six+seconds+in+dallas

    In fact, because the murderers of JFK were running the non-investigation into his death, the entire so-called evidentiary record of the JFK assassination is corrupted, including witness testimony that was either fabricated, changed or destroyed and discarded if it did not fit the official narrative.

    Again: Lyndon Johnson/US intelligence murdered John Kennedy. LBJ and his blood brother FBI director Hoover covered it up. And CIA Allen Dulles ran the Warren Commission fantasy.

    20-30 witnesses, both at Parkland and Bethesda, describe a massive blow out hole in the back of JFK’s head. Therefore the JFK head x-rays were faked to disguise this incriminating evidence of a head shot from the front, which caused a blowout exit wound in the back of JFK’s head.

    Pre-selected CIA patsy Oswald obviously was not on the Grassy Knoll.

    Ramsey Clark and his very corrupt daddy Tom Clark were both Lyndon Johnson lackeys.

    Clark: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKclarkRamsay.htm

    “In 1968 Attorney General Ramsey Clark appointed a panel of four medical experts to examine various photographs, X-ray films, documents, and other evidence pertaining to the death of President John F. Kennedy. The Clark Panel argued that Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind him, one of which traversed the base of the neck on the right side without striking bone and the other of which entered the skull from behind and destroyed its upper right side…. On 25th January, 1969, Ramsey Clark’s final day as Attorney General, he ordered the Justice Department to withhold from Jim Garrison, the X-Rays and photographs from the autopsy of John F. Kennedy.”

    1. I find it difficult to find flaws in Robert Morrow’s take on the assassination. LBJ had to have been a key player. His role in the cover up and in setting up and pushing forward the Warren Commission, his detail-oriented checking on Dr. Crenshaw, and the absolutely corrupt way he grasped for power as a means to an end, all point to his guilt as at the very least an accessory to the crime. I think he was more than just an accessory, and that he entangled CIA with the the murder, which is why that agency is so bonkers to this day about releasing the final files.

  7. That bullet fragment(with the vertical arrow pointing to it, as described)appears to be exactly where JFK’s Assistant Press Secretary was pointing to, when he described the location of the shot that killed JFK.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top