Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[Michael T. Griffith]

I see Jack Nessan is doing more straining and blundering, even to the point of making the hilarious claim that "OD is not a science." Humm, tell that to the thousands of radiation oncologists and other scientists who use OD measurements in their work. Clearly, he still has not bothered to read Dr. Mantik's OD research. Here are some other sources on the science of OD measurement:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b61c/98657a5333aa4076b02de8f3f62ba03b6180.pdf

https://www.idex-hs.com/contact/contact-us/faqs/optical-filters-faqs/what-is-optical-density

https://www.aapm.org/meetings/02am/pdf/8321-71068.pdf

https://www.bmglabtech.com/en/blog/optical-density-for-absorbance-assays/

SA Kellerman is your new expert, really. Yeah, why not, of course he would know.

This is your answer to the fact that Kellerman got a prolonged look at JFK's wounds and said the rear head entry wound was at the EOP? No one said Kellerman was an "expert." You don't have to be an expert to see that a small wound is near the hairline and the EOP and not a whopping 4 inches higher in the cowlick.

What happened to Dr. Hodges as your expert? . . . Interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as your expert.  He does not confirm your EOP site. . . .

Wrong again. Hodges did confirm the EOP site. You'd better go back and read what he said on pp. 2-3. He specifically mentioned "a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region" (p. 3), and he specified that the "x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput" (p. 3). You even quoted these statements, but obviously did not understand them.

The debunked cowlick site was claimed to be above the occiput and in the right parietal bone, about 0.8 cm to the right of the sagittal suture and 1.7 cm above the lambda. The EOP site is in the righthand side of the occiput, i.e., "the right occiput."

. . . nor cerebellum damage.

I never said he confirmed cerebellar damage. He neither confirmed nor denied cerebellar damage, i.e., damage to the cerebellum. He made no comment either way on it.

You keep dancing around the core problems:

(1) The autopsy photos, the autopsy doctors, several experts, and several eyewitnesses support the EOP site, but the brain photos do not show the damage that would have been done by the EOP-site bullet. Any bullet entering at the EOP site would have torn through the cerebellum, but the brain photos show a virtually intact cerebellum.

(2) We know that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, and several witnesses reported that a substantial portion of the brain was blown away, and, crucially, the skull x-rays show a large amount of the right brain missing, but the brain photos show a brain that is missing "less than" 1-2 ounces of brain tissue.

Another strong line of evidence that proves that the autopsy photos are not of JFK's brain is the evidence that there were two supplemental brain exams, that Finck was excluded from the first brain exam, that the official autopsy photographer did not take the brain photos in evidence, and Finck's comment that the brain looked different at the brain exam he attended than it did at the autopsy. Doug Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for military records at the time, compiled this evidence in a 32-page ARRB memo, a memo that the Washington Post found convincing:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_BrainExams.pdf

Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, noted that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex at the location of the alleged cowlick entry wound:

There is no entrance wound where the HSCA locates it. The autopsy photographs show intact cerebral cortex at the point that the HSCA claims is an entrance wound. This is confirmed by correct interpretation of the X-rays. (https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

Riley also noted that there is no connection between the high fragment trail and the cavitation wound, which is well below that trail, and that the cavitation wound is consistent with the EOP entry site:

The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. . . .

The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. . . .
         
There are clear signs of an entrance wound where it was described by the prosectors. (https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

Simply put, the autopsy materials show two separate, unconnected wound paths through JFK's head, one near the top of the skull (the high fragment trail) and the other several inches lower, proving beyond any doubt that two bullets hit the head. This is one of the reasons the autopsy doctors said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report or in their testimony. The other reason was that they knew there was no rear entry wound that corresponded with the high fragment trail.

[Jack Nessan]

I see Jack Nessan is doing more straining and blundering, even to the point of making the hilarious claim that "OD is not a science." Humm, tell that to the thousands of radiation oncologists and other scientists who use OD measurements in their work. Clearly, he still has not bothered to read Dr. Mantik's OD research. Here are some other sources on the science of OD measurement:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b61c/98657a5333aa4076b02de8f3f62ba03b6180.pdf

https://www.idex-hs.com/contact/contact-us/faqs/optical-filters-faqs/what-is-optical-density

https://www.aapm.org/meetings/02am/pdf/8321-71068.pdf

https://www.bmglabtech.com/en/blog/optical-density-for-absorbance-assays/

This is your answer to the fact that Kellerman got a prolonged look at JFK's wounds and said the rear head entry wound was at the EOP? No one said Kellerman was an "expert." You don't have to be an expert to see that a small wound is near the hairline and the EOP and not a whopping 4 inches higher in the cowlick.

Wrong again. Hodges did confirm the EOP site. You'd better go back and read what he said on pp. 2-3. He specifically mentioned "a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region" (p. 3), and he specified that the "x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput" (p. 3). You even quoted these statements, but obviously did not understand them.

The debunked cowlick site was claimed to be above the occiput and in the right parietal bone, about 0.4 cm to the right of the sagittal suture and 0.5 cm above the lambda. The EOP site is in the righthand side of the occiput, i.e., "the right occiput."

I never said he confirmed cerebellar damage. He neither confirmed nor denied cerebellar damage, i.e., damage to the cerebellum. He made no comment either way on it.

You keep dancing around the core problems:

(1) The autopsy photos, the autopsy doctors, several experts, and several eyewitnesses support the EOP site, but the brain photos do not show the damage that would have been done by the EOP-site bullet. Any bullet entering at the EOP site would have torn through the cerebellum, but the brain photos show a virtually intact cerebellum.

(2) We know that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, and several witnesses reported that a substantial portion of the brain was blown away, and, crucially, the skull x-rays show a large amount of the right brain missing, but the brain photos show a brain that is missing "less than" 1-2 ounces of brain tissue.

Another strong line of evidence that proves that the autopsy photos are not of JFK's brain is the evidence that there were two supplemental brain exams, that Finck was excluded from the first brain exam, that the official autopsy photographer did not take the brain photos in evidence, and Finck's comment that the brain looked different at the brain exam he attended than it did at the autopsy. Doug Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for military records at the time, compiled this evidence in a 32-page ARRB memo, a memo that the Washington Post found convincing:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_BrainExams.pdf

Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, noted that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex at the location of the alleged cowlick entry wound:

There is no entrance wound where the HSCA locates it. The autopsy photographs show intact cerebral cortex at the point that the HSCA claims is an entrance wound. This is confirmed by correct interpretation of the X-rays. (https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

Riley also noted that there is no connection between the high fragment trail and the cavitation wound, which is well below that trail, and that the cavitation wound is consistent with the EOP entry site:

The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. . . .

The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. . . .
         
There are clear signs of an entrance wound where it was described by the prosectors. (https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

Simply put, the autopsy materials show two separate, unconnected wound paths through JFK's head, one near the top of the skull (the high fragment trail) and the other several inches lower, proving beyond any doubt that two bullets hit the head. This is one of the reasons the autopsy doctors said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report or in their testimony. The other reason was that they knew there was no rear entry wound that corresponded with the high fragment trail.

It is obvious you have never read all the information you have posted.

Dr Mantik is using experimental data. Hardly a science.

Dr. Mantik: Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical], David Mantik and Doug Horne’s status within the so-called research community are of such a proportion that I find it necessary to note the numerous mistakes in their collected works

Dr. Mantik believes the X Ray photos are faked. All of his conclusions are based on what he believes are fake X Rays? Is that the science you are referring to?
------------------
Lets look back:
“The OP also discusses Dr. Fred Hodges' finding that the AP skull x-ray shows "a goodly portion" of the right brain to be missing, that Dr. Humes said that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away”
Sill interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as an example.  He does not confirm your EOP site nor cerebellum damage.

M Griffith:“It ignores the fact that the autopsy doctors said the rear head entry wound was slightly above (1 cm above) and 2.5 cm to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP), which means the bullet would have torn through the cerebellum.”
Here is what Dr Hodges stated:

“"a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the colored photographs showing a large, compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the occipital region."
--------------
Occipital Region vs EOP

The occipital region refers to the area of the skull at the back of the head, encompassing the occipital bone and its associated structures. The EOP Site is a specific location within the occipital region, characterized by the external occipital protuberance, which is a bony projection on the external surface of the occipital bone. The EOP is significant for its role in the attachment of muscles and ligaments, as well as its potential clinical relevance in various medical fields. Not hardly the same reference point.
---------------
SA Kellerman? I guess he does have an S and an A before his name which in your mind would make him an expert. Why did the HSCA and the WC bother with all the doctors when they could have just relied on SA Kellerman?

[Michael T. Griffith]

It is obvious you have never read all the information you have posted.

Dr Mantik is using experimental data. Hardly a science.

Dr. Mantik: Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical], David Mantik and Doug Horne’s status within the so-called research community are of such a proportion that I find it necessary to note the numerous mistakes in their collected works

Dr. Mantik believes the X Ray photos are faked. All of his conclusions are based on what he believes are fake X Rays? Is that the science you are referring to?
------------------
Lets look back:
“The OP also discusses Dr. Fred Hodges' finding that the AP skull x-ray shows "a goodly portion" of the right brain to be missing, that Dr. Humes said that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away”
Sill interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as an example.  He does not confirm your EOP site nor cerebellum damage.

M Griffith:“It ignores the fact that the autopsy doctors said the rear head entry wound was slightly above (1 cm above) and 2.5 cm to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP), which means the bullet would have torn through the cerebellum.”
Here is what Dr Hodges stated:

“"a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the colored photographs showing a large, compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the occipital region."
--------------
Occipital Region vs EOP

The occipital region refers to the area of the skull at the back of the head, encompassing the occipital bone and its associated structures. The EOP Site is a specific location within the occipital region, characterized by the external occipital protuberance, which is a bony projection on the external surface of the occipital bone. The EOP is significant for its role in the attachment of muscles and ligaments, as well as its potential clinical relevance in various medical fields. Not hardly the same reference point.
---------------
SA Kellerman? I guess he does have an S and an A before his name which in your mind would make him an expert. Why did the HSCA and the WC bother with all the doctors when they could have just relied on SA Kellerman?

Oh my goodness. So you're doubling down on your clownish claims and denials about the science of OD measurement. You keep ignoring the fact that we're talking about three sets of OD measurements: those done by Dr. Mantik (reviewed and approved by Dr. Arthur G. Haus and by Dr. Greg Henkelmann), those done by Dr. Chesser, and those done by Dr. DeSalles.

I notice you said nothing about the links I provided on the science of OD measurement.

I see you're also once again refusing to acknowledge the clear meaning of Hodges' statements. Do you just not understand what you're reading? Is that it?

Hodges said the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, and he referenced the autopsy report when he did so. The autopsy report says the entry wound was in the occiput, that it was slightly above and 2.5 to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). Yet, you keep pretending that Hodges rejected the autopsy report's location for the wound. You either don't understand what you're reading or you're trying to mislead readers.

Let's read again what Hodges said and see that he clearly referenced and endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound:

Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput. . . . (pp. 2-3)

What do you not understand here? Hodges was clearly, unmistakably discussing and endorsing the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry site. The debunked cowlick entry site is not even in any part of the occipital bone--it is supposedly in the parietal bone, about 1.7 above the lambda, a whopping 4 inches higher than where the autopsy doctors said it was. Go Google a basic skull diagram to understand the difference between a wound in the occipital bone and a wound in the parietal bone.

If the EOP site is correct, which it surely is, then the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

Again, you might read what your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, says about why the EOP site is correct and why the cowlick site is bogus (The JFK Myths, pp. 182-188).

I notice you said nothing about the two separate, unconnected wound paths through JFK's skull discussed by Dr. Joseph Riley, who was a neuroanatomist.

[Zeon Mason]

So what about those Z film frames following Z313 that look like (to me at least ) that there’s a whole lot  of missing brain as the whole front part of JFKs head is gone.?

[Tom Graves]

So what about those Z film frames following Z313 that look like (to me at least ) that there’s a whole lot  of missing brain as the whole front part of JFKs head is gone.?

What would you like to know?

[Michael T. Griffith]

This is the level of absurdity Michael Griffith would have us believe: imaginary "forgers" who are so adept at their imaginary jobs that they can fool every medical expert who ever examined the materials with the exception of the miraculous Dr. David Mantik. Come on now...

Another surreal, Flat-Earther-like comment. Your answer to the hard scientific evidence of forgery in the autopsy materials resembles the zany denials we get from 9/11 Truthers and Flat Earthers when they are confronted with scientific evidence that refutes their theories. You and your fellow WC true believers are decades behind the information curve because your heads are buried in the sand when it comes to the new disclosures and new scientific findings that refute your theory.

Let's start with the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. For decades, every expert who reviewed the skull x-rays concluded it was a bullet fragment, but now even Pat Speer and Larry Sturdivan acknowledge that it cannot be a bullet fragment but must be some kind of "artifact." Speer and Sturdivan can't bring themselves to accept the fact that multiple OD measurements have proved the object is not metallic and the fact that Dr. Mantik has even duplicated how the object's image was placed on the AP x-ray, but they acknowledge that the object cannot be a bullet fragment.

Just look at your side's pitiful, grasping, strained attempts in this thread to explain the fact that the skull x-rays show far more missing brain than the brain photos show.

No, Jack Nessan, when Dr. Hodges said that "a goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing," his use of the word "apparently" does not mean he was guessing. When used in a medical-scientific context, "apparently" is the same as saying "this is what it shows" or "as observed" or "this is how it appears."

And only in a brainwashed lone-gunman theorist's mind could believe that "a goodly portion of the right brain" even remotely refers to less than 1-2 ounces of brain tissue. The term "goodly" is a common term with a known, long-established definition:

The Collins Dictionary:

"Goodly": A goodly amount or part of something is a fairly large amount or part of it, often more than was expected.

The Cambridge Dictionary:

"Goodly": GREATER THAN THE AVERAGE SIZE OR AMOUNT

Example: A goodly portion of the objects on show are real rarities.

Google AI overview defines "a goodly portion" as follows:

"A goodly portion" means a large, substantial amount or part of something, often more than average or expected. Usage examples include "a goodly portion of his time was spent volunteering" or "a goodly portion of the land is valuable property". Synonyms include substantial, considerable, large, and significant.

So when Dr. Hodges said the x-rays show "a goodly portion" of the right brain missing, he was saying the exact same thing as saying the x-rays show "a substantial portion" or "a large portion" or "a significant portion" of the right brain to be missing.

Gee, isn't it the most amazing coincidence that Dr. Humes said that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away, that OD measurements of the skull x-rays prove they show only about 30% of the right brain to be present, that the mortician Tom Robinson said the amount of missing brain equaled the size of a human fist, that several other witnesses said the brain was missing 1/3 to 2/3 of its tissue, and that we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces? Gee, how about that?!

Finally, it bears repeating that numerous experts have found evidence of alteration and forgery in the autopsy materials, including Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Doug DeSalles, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Robert Livingston, and RN Kathy Cunningham, among others, in addition to Dr. Mantik.

For a better understanding of the evidence of alteration and forgery in the autopsy photos and x-rays, I recommend Dr. Michael Chesser's presentation "The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of the Brain Photographs," given at South Texas College of Law in Houston in 2017. Dr. Chesser is a practicing, board-certified neurologist with decades of experience in the medical field. Here's a link to his presentation:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf

[Jack Nessan]

Oh my goodness. So you're doubling down on your clownish claims and denials about the science of OD measurement. You keep ignoring the fact that we're talking about three sets of OD measurements: those done by Dr. Mantik (reviewed and approved by Dr. Arthur G. Haus and by Dr. Greg Henkelmann), those done by Dr. Chesser, and those done by Dr. DeSalles.

I notice you said nothing about the links I provided on the science of OD measurement.

I see you're also once again refusing to acknowledge the clear meaning of Hodges' statements. Do you just not understand what you're reading? Is that it?

Hodges said the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, and he referenced the autopsy report when he did so. The autopsy report says the entry wound was in the occiput, that it was slightly above and 2.5 to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). Yet, you keep pretending that Hodges rejected the autopsy report's location for the wound. You either don't understand what you're reading or you're trying to mislead readers.

Let's read again what Hodges said and see that he clearly referenced and endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound:

Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput. . . . (pp. 2-3)

What do you not understand here? Hodges was clearly, unmistakably discussing and endorsing the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry site. The debunked cowlick entry site is not even in any part of the occipital bone--it is supposedly in the parietal bone, about 1.7 above the lambda, a whopping 4 inches higher than where the autopsy doctors said it was. Go Google a basic skull diagram to understand the difference between a wound in the occipital bone and a wound in the parietal bone.

If the EOP site is correct, which it surely is, then the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

Again, you might read what your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, says about why the EOP site is correct and why the cowlick site is bogus (The JFK Myths, pp. 182-188).

I notice you said nothing about the two separate, unconnected wound paths through JFK's skull discussed by Dr. Joseph Riley, who was a neuroanatomist.

Oh my goodness. So you're doubling down on your clownish claims and denials about the science of OD measurement. You keep ignoring the fact that we're talking about three sets of OD measurements: those done by Dr. Mantik (reviewed and approved by Dr. Arthur G. Haus and by Dr. Greg Henkelmann), those done by Dr. Chesser, and those done by Dr. DeSalles.

Dr Mantik said they were experimental.  When did experimental become hard science?
 
I notice you said nothing about the links I provided on the science of OD measurement.

Dr Mantik stated his work was just experimental and the photos were faked. Do you not grasp that. You read them first, that will make it easier to then help you understand what you have read. You seem to struggle with that.

I noticed you never stated that you read them. Like with Dr Hodges statement, you will just deny what is written in the links.

Have you read them?
 
I see you're also once again refusing to acknowledge the clear meaning of Hodges' statements. Do you just not understand what you're reading? Is that it?

What Is understood is you obviously never read what he stated and it is not what you have been promoting.

How could he have been clearer. The damaged occipital region is not the cerebellum. 
 
Hodges said the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, and he referenced the autopsy report when he did so. The autopsy report says the entry wound was in the occiput, that it was slightly above and 2.5 to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). Yet, you keep pretending that Hodges rejected the autopsy report's location for the wound. You either don't understand what you're reading or you're trying to mislead readers.
 

No. Remember, the original post came from the rebuttal to Pat Speer. Something you obviously never read but were telling everyone else to read.
 
Dr Hodges
"Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region. "
 
The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput. . . . (pp. 2-3)
 
What do you not understand here? Hodges was clearly, unmistakably discussing and endorsing the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry site. The debunked cowlick entry site is not even in any part of the occipital bone--it is supposedly in the parietal bone, about 1.7 above the lambda, a whopping 4 inches higher than where the autopsy doctors said it was. Go Google a basic skull diagram to understand the difference between a wound in the occipital bone and a wound in the parietal bone.

No one but you are always talking about the cowlick site. Pretend all you want but Dr Hodges did not state what you wanted him to.
 
If the EOP site is correct, which it surely is, then the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

No. They stated where the wound was located and what aspects of the brain were affected. You want the cerebellum to be where the bullet traveled, and according to your Dr Hodges it did not. Why trot Dr Hodges out as an expert and then trash what he stated?

Here is the location of the bullet’s path. “a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.” Where is the reference to the cerebellum? The cerebellum is below the occipital region. 

Where are the two shots from the front you have stated took place?