Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[Michael T. Griffith]

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?
 
Dr Mantik stated his work was just experimental. Do you not grasp that.

The primary meaning of "experimental" in a scientific context is that it "refers to things that are derived from or based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone." You're using one of the secondary definitions of "experimental," i.e., tentative or provisional, but that is not how Dr. Mantik was using the term.

To further quote Google AI on the definitions of "experimental":

"Experimental" describes something that is new, based on a test or trial, or uses new methods to discover something new. It can also refer to something tentative, provisional, or done for the purpose of testing, such as an experimental drug, an experimental artist, or an experimental rule.

Given the apparently limited nature of your reading, even if you had read Dr. Mantik's research, I'm not sure you would have realized that he is not using the term "experimental" to mean tentative or provisional but is using it to refer to things (OD measurements) that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone."

Pat Speer made the same blunder. You got this blunder from his amateurish attack on Dr. Mantik's research. One would hope this would cause to you to rethink your reliance on a college dropout when it comes to medical-scientific issues that are far beyond his education and background.

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

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?

This sounds like juvenile posturing. Yes, I have read them. I've also read many other articles on the science of OD measurement. OD measurements are used in a variety of disciplines. Radiation oncologists use them to form some of their diagnoses. Microbiologists use OD measurements to estimate cell concentration and monitor growth by measuring how much light is scattered or absorbed by a suspension. Optics producers use OD measurements to design lenses and other optical instruments.
 

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.

You must be kidding. Dr. Hodges referenced the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound and then said, in plain English, that the wound was in the right occiput. The autopsy report says the wound was 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP, which means it was in the right occiput.

How could he have been clearer. The damaged occipital region is not the cerebellum.

Again, as I told you in my previous reply, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage. He neither confirmed nor denied it. His main job was to provide an analysis of the skull x-rays, since he was the only radiologist on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel. He focused on the damage to the skull seen in the skull x-rays and supported his observations with occasional references to the autopsy photos.

You keep dancing around the fact that Dr. Hodges said (1) that the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of the right brain to be missing, and (2) that the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, just as the autopsy report says it was.

BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:

Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. (p. 3)

No bullet that entered the debunked cowlick site and exited above the right ear could have passed through the occiput. In fact, such a bullet would have gone nowhere near the occiput. You can Google a skull diagram to confirm this fact.
 

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.

So you think I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer?! Yeah, okay. Surely you know better.

But, just for the sake of dealing with this silliness, let's assume I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer: How does this explain the fact that Dr. Hodges undeniably endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound?

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 cm 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.

Uh, yes, he did. He said the wound was in the right occipital region, and he did so after specifically referencing the autopsy report's location for the wound, and he even noted that "many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site," i.e., the site described in the autopsy report.

And, yes, I'm talking about the cowlick site because that was the bogus site that was floated in order to avoid having to deal with the impossible trajectory of the EOP site. As early as the late 1960s, critics noted that any bullet striking the EOP site at a downward angle would have blown out a substantial part of the face, as confirmed by the WC's own wound ballistics tests. Critics also noted that the WC's own diagram showed that for the EOP-site trajectory to "work," JFK would have had to be leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck.
 

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?

Again, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage. In fact, he said nothing about brain damage except to note that the x-rays show a large part of the right brain to be missing. He did not discuss which parts of the brain were damaged. His focus was on the damage to the skull as seen in the skull x-rays, since he was the only radiologist on the RC's medical panel.

Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.

I should add that a bullet hitting the EOP at a downward angle would have also torn through the right occipital lobe, but the brain photos show no damage to the right occipital lobe, as the HSCA FPP pointed out to the autopsy doctors to try to get them to repudiate the EOP site.

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.

How many times are you going to repeat this strawman argument? Again, I never said Hodges mentioned damage to the cerebellum. You've just made this up to serve as a strawman because you can't explain how the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos can both be correct.

The HSCA FPP hammered the autopsy doctors with the argument that if the EOP site was correct, the autopsy brain photos would show substantial damage to the cerebellum, but the brain photos show no pre-mortem cerebellar damage--they don't even show any bleeding in the cerebellum. So either the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound is wrong or the  autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. It's that simple.

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

I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about the basics of the multiple-gunmen case.

[Jack Nessan]

The primary meaning of "experimental" in a scientific context is that it "refers to things that are derived from or based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone." You're using one of the secondary definitions of "experimental," i.e., tentative or provisional, but that is not how Dr. Mantik was using the term.

To further quote Google AI on the definitions of "experimental":

"Experimental" describes something that is new, based on a test or trial, or uses new methods to discover something new. It can also refer to something tentative, provisional, or done for the purpose of testing, such as an experimental drug, an experimental artist, or an experimental rule.

Given the apparently limited nature of your reading, even if you had read Dr. Mantik's research, I'm not sure you would have realized that he is not using the term "experimental" to mean tentative or provisional but is using it to refer to things (OD measurements) that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone."

Pat Speer made the same blunder. You got this blunder from his amateurish attack on Dr. Mantik's research. One would hope this would cause to you to rethink your reliance on a college dropout when it comes to medical-scientific issues that are far beyond his education and background.

This sounds like juvenile posturing. Yes, I have read them. I've also read many other articles on the science of OD measurement. OD measurements are used in a variety of disciplines. Radiation oncologists use them to form some of their diagnoses. Microbiologists use OD measurements to estimate cell concentration and monitor growth by measuring how much light is scattered or absorbed by a suspension. Optics producers use OD measurements to design lenses and other optical instruments.
 
You must be kidding. Dr. Hodges referenced the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound and then said, in plain English, that the wound was in the right occiput. The autopsy report says the wound was 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP, which means it was in the right occiput.

Again, as I told you in my previous reply, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage. He neither confirmed nor denied it. His main job was to provide an analysis of the skull x-rays, since he was the only radiologist on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel. He focused on the damage to the skull seen in the skull x-rays and supported his observations with occasional references to the autopsy photos.

You keep dancing around the fact that Dr. Hodges said (1) that the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of the right brain to be missing, and (2) that the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, just as the autopsy report says it was.

BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:

Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. (p. 3)

No bullet that entered the debunked cowlick site and exited above the right ear could have passed through the occiput. In fact, such as bullet would have gone nowhere near the occiput. You can Google a skull diagram to confirm this fact.
 
So you think I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer?! Yeah, okay. Surely you know better.

But, just for the sake of dealing with this silliness, let's assume I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer: How does this explain the fact that Dr. Hodges undeniably endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound?

Uh, yes, he did. He said the wound was in the right occipital region, and he did so after specifically referencing the autopsy report's location for the wound, and he even noted that "many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site," i.e., the site described in the autopsy report.

And, yes, I'm talking about the cowlick site because that was the bogus site that was floated in order to avoid having to deal with the impossible trajectory of the EOP site. As early as the late 1960s, critics noted that any bullet striking the EOP site at a downward angle would have blown out a substantial part of the face, as confirmed by the WC's own wound ballistics tests. Critics also noted that the WC's own diagram showed that for the EOP-site trajectory to "work," JFK would have had to be leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck.
 
Again, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage. In fact, he said nothing about brain damage except to note that the x-rays show a large part of the right brain to be missing. He did not discuss which parts of the brain were damaged. His focus was on the damage to the skull as seen in the skull x-rays, since he was the only radiologist on the RC's medical panel.

Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.

I should add that a bullet hitting the EOP at a downward angle would have also torn through the right occipital lobe, but the brain photos show no damage to the right occipital lobe, as the HSCA FPP pointed out to the autopsy doctors to try to get them to repudiate the EOP site.

How many times are you going to repeat this strawman argument? Again, I never said Hodges mentioned damage to the cerebellum. You've just made this up to serve as a strawman because you can't explain how the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos can both be correct.

The HSCA FPP hammered the autopsy doctors with the argument that if the EOP site was correct, the autopsy brain photos would show substantial damage to the cerebellum, but the brain photos show no pre-mortem cerebellar damage--they don't even show any bleeding in the cerebellum. So either the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound is wrong or the  autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. It's that simple.

I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about the basics of the multiple-gunmen case.

It can also refer to something tentative, provisional, or done for the purpose of testing

"Something tenative, provisional" is not a description of a solid scientific principle.

Now you get it. Not definitive. Where is the science?

How about do not refer to it as a science again based on what you just posted.

-------

Given the apparently limited nature of your reading, even if you had read Dr. Mantik's research, I'm not sure you would have realized that he is not using the term "experimental" to mean tentative or provisional but is using it to refer to things (OD measurements) that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone."

Nobody is in need of your childlike understanding of the word "experimental".

Dr Mantik claimed the X Ray Photos were faked based on it. He was wrong. Who else thought he was right but you.

---------

BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:
Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. (p. 3)

Dr Hodges: “and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region”

Dr Hodges' statement of the bullets path is a long way from your claim of “torn through the cerebellum”

M Griffith “which means the bullet would have torn through the cerebellum.”

-------------------

So you think I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer?! Yeah, okay. Surely you know better.
 
I do not think you read the rebuttal at all. You assume what they are all about. It is the only explanation for you missing so much of what was written. Why do I have to explain to you what Dr Hodges stated if you had read the link, let alone all the other things in the rebuttal that have seemed to have gone right over your head.

-------------

Again, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage.   

According to your quote he did. You aren't able to understand what he stated? Then you wonder why I don't think you read your own links?

Because the bullets path was above it.

-----------------------

Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.

Nobody is ducking anything. What a load of crap. You admit it did not travel through the cerebellum. So, what is it you are prattling on about?

-----------------

How many times are you going to repeat this strawman argument?

Until you clue in.

------------------------

So either the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound is wrong or the  autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. It's that simple.
 
No. This statement is based solely on your opinion, nothing more.

-------------------

I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about the basics of the multiple-gunmen case.

How about educating me on the evidence of a third shot. To date you have not proven there even was a third shot, let alone now claiming two more shots from the front; that would be considered absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Notice that lone-gunman theorists are saying nothing about the fact that bits of JFK’s brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain tissue that Jackie handed to a doctor in the Parkland emergency room.

Vincent Bugliosi was so pathologically committed to the lone-gunman theory that he did not realize the devastating, fatal nature of Dr. Baden’s admission that the brain in the autopsy brain photos is missing “less than” 1-2 ounces of its substance.

Bugliosi was so blinded by his bias that he forgot that elsewhere in his book he mentioned that Jackie Kennedy was holding “a large chunk” of JFK’s brain when she entered the Parkland Hospital emergency room and gave it to Dr. Marion T. (“Pepper”) Jenkins:

Looking shell-shocked, Mrs. Kennedy aimlessly circles the hospital gurney where technicians work feverishly on her husband’s body. Her hands are cupped in front of her, as if cradling something. As she passes Dr. Jenkins, she nudges him with her elbow and hands him what she has been nursing—a large chunk of brain tissue. Jenkins quickly gives it to a nearby nurse. (Reclaiming History, p. 182)

Dr. Jenkins himself confirmed that Jackie Kennedy handed him “a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues”:

Jacqueline Kennedy was circling the room, walking behind my back. The Secret Service could not keep her out of the room. She looked shell-shocked. As she circled and circled, I noticed that her hands were cupped in front of her, as if she were cradling something. As she passed by, she nudged me with an elbow and handed me what she had been nursing in her hands: a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues. I quickly handed it to a nurse. (Dennis Breo, “JFK’s Death, Part II,” Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, p. 2806, https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md221.pdf)

Obviously, this “large chunk” of brain tissue could not have come from the brain shown in the autopsy brain photos.

And keep in mind that bits of brain tissue from JFK’s brain also ended up on 16 surfaces, including Officer Martin’s clothes, Officer Hargis’s clothes, the follow-up car’s windshield, SS agent Kinney’s coat (he was riding in the follow-up car), the limo’s rear passenger door, the limo’s front seat, the limo’s back seat, and the drapes of JFK’s emergency room cart (in his 11/22 written statement, Dr. Jenkins said he saw “fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart”).

Is anyone going to argue that all of this splattered/dripped brain tissue and the “large chunk” of brain tissue that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins—that all of this brain tissue amounted to "less than" 1-2 ounces?

Bugliosi either was not aware of all the brain tissue that splattered or dripped from JFK’s brain, including the “large chunk” of brain tissue that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins, or he simply forgot about this damning fact in his eagerness to trumpet Baden’s statement that “less than” 1-2 ounces of brain tissue are missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos.

[Jack Nessan]

Notice that lone-gunman theorists are saying nothing about the fact that bits of JFK’s brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain tissue that Jackie handed to a doctor in the Parkland emergency room.

Vincent Bugliosi was so pathologically committed to the lone-gunman theory that he did not realize the devastating, fatal nature of Dr. Baden’s admission that the brain in the autopsy brain photos is missing “less than” 1-2 ounces of its substance.

Bugliosi was so blinded by his bias that he forgot that elsewhere in his book he mentioned that Jackie Kennedy was holding “a large chunk” of JFK’s brain when she entered the Parkland Hospital emergency room and gave it to Dr. Marion T. (“Pepper”) Jenkins:

Looking shell-shocked, Mrs. Kennedy aimlessly circles the hospital gurney where technicians work feverishly on her husband’s body. Her hands are cupped in front of her, as if cradling something. As she passes Dr. Jenkins, she nudges him with her elbow and hands him what she has been nursing—a large chunk of brain tissue. Jenkins quickly gives it to a nearby nurse. (Reclaiming History, p. 182)

Dr. Jenkins himself confirmed that Jackie Kennedy handed him “a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues”:

Jacqueline Kennedy was circling the room, walking behind my back. The Secret Service could not keep her out of the room. She looked shell-shocked. As she circled and circled, I noticed that her hands were cupped in front of her, as if she were cradling something. As she passed by, she nudged me with an elbow and handed me what she had been nursing in her hands: a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues. I quickly handed it to a nurse. (Dennis Breo, “JFK’s Death, Part II,” Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, p. 2806, https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md221.pdf)

Obviously, this “large chunk” of brain tissue could not have come from the brain shown in the autopsy brain photos.

And keep in mind that bits of brain tissue from JFK’s brain also ended up on 16 surfaces, including Officer Martin’s clothes, Officer Hargis’s clothes, the follow-up car’s windshield, SS agent Kinney’s coat (he was riding in the follow-up car), the limo’s rear passenger door, the limo’s front seat, the limo’s back seat, and the drapes of JFK’s emergency room cart (in his 11/22 written statement, Dr. Jenkins said he saw “fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart”).

Is anyone going to argue that all of this splattered/dripped brain tissue and the “large chunk” of brain tissue that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins—that all of this brain tissue amounted to "less than" 1-2 ounces?

Bugliosi either was not aware of all the brain tissue that splattered or dripped from JFK’s brain, including the “large chunk” of brain tissue that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins, or he simply forgot about this damning fact in his eagerness to trumpet Baden’s statement that “less than” 1-2 ounces of brain tissue are missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos.

-----------------

This would be a great time to show case Dr Mantik's OD measurements. Dr Mantik can use OD Measurements on the brain matter and blood cloud above JFK from the headshot in the Zapruder Film. Isn’t it your claim that it is science and works no matter what is taking place.

What brain matter was held in Jackie's hand was not part of what was blown up into the air and would have been placed back with the rest, would it not have? Dr Mantik would undoubtedly have known this, and it could be figured into his calculations because it is a science or claimed to be one.

I doubt you have read this, it is from Dr Mantik’s reply to Pat Speer’s critique, but this is where Dr Mantik went off the rails on the X Rays having been faked. Again, where is the science in this? There is no crime in not knowing something but reaching conclusions that are proven wrong then casts doubt on other aspects of the conclusions.

“The correction of my mistake came from Arthur G. Haus and colleagues at Kodak, who advised me about image crossovers (from one side of the film to the other) in these 1960s X-rays, a technical problem that was later solved. (Initially, I had only known about modern X-ray films, where the image cannot effectively cross over from one side to the other.) The presence of such crossover in these JFK X-rays, though, re-opened the door to photographic alteration in the darkroom”

Faked X Rays instead of just admit he was mistaken.
 

 

 

[Michael T. Griffith]

It can also refer to something tentative, provisional, or done for the purpose of testing

"Something tenative, provisional" is not a description of a solid scientific principle. Now you get it. Not definitive. Where is the science?

Your comment is either a display or raw ignorance or naked dissembling. Let's read what Dr. Mantik says again on this point, and notice that he specifically contrasts "experimental" with "theoretical" regarding the OD data:

As if wearing blinders, Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical. ("Speer Critique," p. 12, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-autopsy-x-rays-david-mantik-vs-pat-speer)

Do you really not have the intelligence and education to see that Dr. Mantik is using the primary scientific definition of "experimental" and is referring to things that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone"? Really? Are you seriously that uneducated and confused?

How about do not refer to it as a science again based on what you just posted.

How about you stop displaying such raw ignorance and stop comically denying that we're talking about hard scientific evidence from an established, recognized science? Let's read again what a real medical expert, board-certified radiation oncologist Dr. Greg Henkelmann, says about Dr. Mantik's OD measurements:

Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)

Compare this to your comical claims that "No one but Mantik believes OD has any validity" and that "OD is not a science."

If you'd like to verify Dr. Henkelmann's credentials, here are some links about him:

https://health.usnews.com/doctors/gregory-henkelmann-562388

https://maryhttps://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.htmlorg/blog/3-factors-you-should-consider-when-choosing-cancer-care-providers/

https://www.womans.org/findadoctor/gregory-c-henkelmann

Given the apparently limited nature of your reading, even if you had read Dr. Mantik's research, I'm not sure you would have realized that he is not using the term "experimental" to mean tentative or provisional but is using it to refer to things (OD measurements) that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone."

Nobody is in need of your childlike understanding of the word "experimental."

You're the one using the grade-school definition of "experimental" and who keeps denying that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You have revealed yourself to be little more than an uneducated troll and a fringe lone-gunman theorist whose zany version of the shooting is rejected even by most of your fellow lone-gunman theorists.

Dr Mantik claimed the X Ray Photos were faked based on it. He was wrong. Who else thought he was right but you.

Who else thinks he's right? Here's a partial list:

-- Dr. Greg Henkelmann, radiation oncologist.
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles, MD.
-- Dr. Michael Chesser, neurologist.
-- Dr. Arthur Haus, former chief of medical science at Kodak.
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, board-certified ophthalmologist and one of the few doctors given permission to view the autopsy materials at the National Archives
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht, forensic pathologist and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
-- Dr. Robert Livingston, Nobel Prize-winning scientist, a former director of two NIH institutes, a former scientific director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the first-ever department of neuroscience at UCSD.
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw, former chief of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.
-- Dr. John Costella, a professor of physics at the University of Melbourne, and the author of four articles on physics published in the American Journal of Physics.

BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:
"Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum." (p. 3)

Dr Hodges: “and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region”

Dr Hodges' statement of the bullets path is a long way from your claim of “torn through the cerebellum”:
M Griffith “which means the bullet would have torn through the cerebellum.”

LOL! I mean, this is just hilarious. You are either aberrantly dissembling or are proving you lack the education and capacity to understand what you're reading.

Let's cut through your evasions and blunderings by having you answer one simple question: How could a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window have entered 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP without tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe?

Before you humiliate and embarrass yourself even further, I'll do you a favor and remind you that the HSCA's forensic experts went to great lengths to point out that if the EOP entry site was correct, the bullet could not possibly have avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. This was the main argument they used to try to get the autopsy doctors to repudiate the EOP site. See especially the lengthy exchange between Dr. Finck and FPP member Dr. Loquvam.

Again, this is so simple: If a bullet fired from the sniper's nest hit the skull at the EOP site, that bullet could not have avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. Ah, but here's the problem for you guys: the autopsy brain photos show no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. 

So you think I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer?! Yeah, okay. Surely you know better.

I do not think you read the rebuttal at all. You assume what they are all about. It is the only explanation for you missing so much of what was written.

This is not only juvenile and hilarious, but a little weird. You clearly either have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer or you lack the capacity to understand it.

You keep making the odd complaint that "Mantik’s whole response to Speer was an attempt to vindicate his use of OD as a tool." Umm, well, yes, Dr. Mantik spends a lot of time in his rebuttal on his OD measurements, because he's answering Speer's bogus, amateurish claims about his OD measurements. Dr. Mantik also spends a lot of time in his rebuttal dealing with Speer's blundering claims about the skull x-rays, the impossible white patch, and the 6.5 mm object.

Why do I have to explain to you what Dr Hodges stated if you had read the link, let alone all the other things in the rebuttal that have seemed to have gone right over your head.

Uh-huh. More abject comedy. You've "explained" nothing to me about what Dr. Hodges said. I've been the one doing all the explaining, because you can't seem to grasp, or don't want to acknowledge, Dr. Hodges' plain-English statements regarding the rear head entry point and the amount of missing brain.

Again, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage.

According to your quote he did. You aren't able to understand what he stated?

Huh? Just Huh? Is English your second language? Nothing in the quotes from Dr. Hodges' report says, or even implies, that he mentioned or addressed cerebellar damage. If you would bother to read his report, you would see that he said nothing about any damage to the cerebellum.

This whole discussion is just ridiculous. You keep dancing around the core issues by going off on irrelevant tangents and pretending you can't understand plain English.

Then you wonder why I don't think you read your own links?

The only thing I wonder is how anyone could get on a public forum and make the kinds of bizarre, vacuous statements you are making.

Because the bullets path was above it [the cerebellum].

Oh my goodness. You have no business even talking about this stuff. No, the bullet's path was not above the cerebellum. Even the autopsy doctors did not deny that an EOP-site bullet would have had to tear through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. You haven't even read the autopsy doctors' HSCA testimony or the HSCA FPP's report, have you?

Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.

Nobody is ducking anything. What a load of crap.

You just now ducked again. You just now, once again, ducked the fact that a bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.

You admit it did not travel through the cerebellum.

So English really is your second language, or perhaps your third? How in the world could you interpret my statements as an admission that the bullet "did not travel through the cerebellum"? How? Are you actually that incapable of grasping plain English and basic logic? 

One of my key points is that the brain photos are obviously fraudulent because they show no damage to the cerebellum, that since the EOP site is correct the brain photos cannot show JFK's brain because they show an intact cerebellum.

But you keep ducking and dodging this point by refusing to explain how the brain photos could be of JFK's brain when they show a brain that's missing less than 1-2 ounces of its tissue and that has no damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.

How many times are you going to repeat this strawman argument?

Until you clue in.

I have clued in, but you are clueless (or else you don't mind embarrassing yourself by pretending not to understand plain English). It is funny that you really don't seem to grasp how badly you are discrediting yourself with this nonsense.

So either the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound is wrong or the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. It's that simple.

No. This statement is based solely on your opinion, nothing more.

Umm, no, the HSCA FPP's main argument against the EOP site was that it could not be correct because the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.

It is impressive and revealing that in spite of having this argument pressed against them repeatedly by eight of the nine forensic pathologists on the FPP, Finck and Boswell refused to repudiate the EOP site and insisted it was correct, and that Humes only repudiated the EOP site with great reluctance at the very end (and then retracted his repudiation and again argued for the EOP site when interviewed by JAMA in 1992).

I can't wait to see what strained, hilarious arguments you're going to make to try to explain the fact that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces and that Jackie handed Dr. Jenkins "a large chunk" of JFKs brain tissue in the Parkland ER.

I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about the basics of the multiple-gunmen case.


How about educating me on the evidence of a third shot. To date you have not proven there even was a third shot, let alone now claiming two more shots from the front; that would be considered absolutely ridiculous.

How about educating you "on the evidence of a third shot"?! Well, your fellow lone-gunman theorists have already done that, but you've refused to acknowledge the evidence. You continue to cling to your ludicrous fringe theory that only two shots were fired during the assassination.

But, hey, you can take comfort in the fact that your zany theory has been endorsed by a disgraced dirty cop who admitted on tape that he had planted evidence to frame minorities, who boasted on tape about police brutality against blacks, and who was convicted of perjury, Mark Fuhrman. Congratulations!

[Tommy Shanks]

Who else thinks he's right? Here's a partial list:

-- Dr. Greg Henkelmann, radiation oncologist.
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles, MD.
-- Dr. Michael Chesser, neurologist.
-- Dr. Arthur Haus, former chief of medical science at Kodak.
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, board-certified ophthalmologist and one of the few doctors given permission to view the autopsy materials at the National Archives
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht, forensic pathologist and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
-- Dr. Robert Livingston, Nobel Prize-winning scientist, a former director of two NIH institutes, a former scientific director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the first-ever department of neuroscience at UCSD.
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw, former chief of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.
-- Dr. John Costella, a professor of physics at the University of Melbourne, and the author of four articles on physics published in the American Journal of Physics.

Just when I think Michael T. Griffith can't make me laugh any harder, he trots out John Costella to bolster David Mantik's ridiculous fake x-ray claims. Yes, the same John Costella who said he and Jack White were being followed and monitored while visiting Dealey Plaza. The same monitors that turned out to be sprinklers. These are the "experts" on whom Griffith relies.

Separately, please produce a source backing up your statement that Dr. Cyril Wecht believes the JFK autopsy x-rays are fake.

[Jack Nessan]

Your comment is either a display or raw ignorance or naked dissembling. Let's read what Dr. Mantik says again on this point, and notice that he specifically contrasts "experimental" with "theoretical" regarding the OD data:

As if wearing blinders, Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical. ("Speer Critique," p. 12, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-autopsy-x-rays-david-mantik-vs-pat-speer)

Do you really not have the intelligence and education to see that Dr. Mantik is using the primary scientific definition of "experimental" and is referring to things that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone"? Really? Are you seriously that uneducated and confused?

How about you stop displaying such raw ignorance and stop comically denying that we're talking about hard scientific evidence from an established, recognized science? Let's read again what a real medical expert, board-certified radiation oncologist Dr. Greg Henkelmann, says about Dr. Mantik's OD measurements:

Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)

Compare this to your comical claims that "No one but Mantik believes OD has any validity" and that "OD is not a science."

If you'd like to verify Dr. Henkelmann's credentials, here are some links about him:

https://health.usnews.com/doctors/gregory-henkelmann-562388

https://maryhttps://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.htmlorg/blog/3-factors-you-should-consider-when-choosing-cancer-care-providers/

https://www.womans.org/findadoctor/gregory-c-henkelmann

You're the one using the grade-school definition of "experimental" and who keeps denying that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You have revealed yourself to be little more than an uneducated troll and a fringe lone-gunman theorist whose zany version of the shooting is rejected even by most of your fellow lone-gunman theorists.

Who else thinks he's right? Here's a partial list:

-- Dr. Greg Henkelmann, radiation oncologist.
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles, MD.
-- Dr. Michael Chesser, neurologist.
-- Dr. Arthur Haus, former chief of medical science at Kodak.
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, board-certified ophthalmologist and one of the few doctors given permission to view the autopsy materials at the National Archives
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht, forensic pathologist and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
-- Dr. Robert Livingston, Nobel Prize-winning scientist, a former director of two NIH institutes, a former scientific director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the first-ever department of neuroscience at UCSD.
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw, former chief of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.
-- Dr. John Costella, a professor of physics at the University of Melbourne, and the author of four articles on physics published in the American Journal of Physics.

LOL! I mean, this is just hilarious. You are either aberrantly dissembling or are proving you lack the education and capacity to understand what you're reading.

Let's cut through your evasions and blunderings by having you answer one simple question: How could a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window have entered 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP without tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe?

Before you humiliate and embarrass yourself even further, I'll do you a favor and remind you that the HSCA's forensic experts went to great lengths to point out that if the EOP entry site was correct, the bullet could not possibly have avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. This was the main argument they used to try to get the autopsy doctors to repudiate the EOP site. See especially the lengthy exchange between Dr. Finck and FPP member Dr. Loquvam.

Again, this is so simple: If a bullet fired from the sniper's nest hit the skull at the EOP site, that bullet could not have avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. Ah, but here's the problem for you guys: the autopsy brain photos show no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. 

This is not only juvenile and hilarious, but a little weird. You clearly either have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer or you lack the capacity to understand it.

You keep making the odd complaint that "Mantik’s whole response to Speer was an attempt to vindicate his use of OD as a tool." Umm, well, yes, Dr. Mantik spends a lot of time in his rebuttal on his OD measurements, because he's answering Speer's bogus, amateurish claims about his OD measurements. Dr. Mantik also spends a lot of time in his rebuttal dealing with Speer's blundering claims about the skull x-rays, the impossible white patch, and the 6.5 mm object.

Uh-huh. More abject comedy. You've "explained" nothing to me about what Dr. Hodges said. I've been the one doing all the explaining, because you can't seem to grasp, or don't want to acknowledge, Dr. Hodges' plain-English statements regarding the rear head entry point and the amount of missing brain.

Huh? Just Huh? Is English your second language? Nothing in the quotes from Dr. Hodges' report says, or even implies, that he mentioned or addressed cerebellar damage. If you would bother to read his report, you would see that he said nothing about any damage to the cerebellum.

This whole discussion is just ridiculous. You keep dancing around the core issues by going off on irrelevant tangents and pretending you can't understand plain English.

The only thing I wonder is how anyone could get on a public forum and make the kinds of bizarre, vacuous statements you are making.

Oh my goodness. You have no business even talking about this stuff. No, the bullet's path was not above the cerebellum. Even the autopsy doctors did not deny that an EOP-site bullet would have had to tear through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. You haven't even read the autopsy doctors' HSCA testimony or the HSCA FPP's report, have you?

You just now ducked again. You just now, once again, ducked the fact that a bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.

So English really is your second language, or perhaps your third? How in the world could you interpret my statements as an admission that the bullet "did not travel through the cerebellum"? How? Are you actually that incapable of grasping plain English and basic logic? 

One of my key points is that the brain photos are obviously fraudulent because they show no damage to the cerebellum, that since the EOP site is correct the brain photos cannot show JFK's brain because they show an intact cerebellum.

But you keep ducking and dodging this point by refusing to explain how the brain photos could be of JFK's brain when they show a brain that's missing less than 1-2 ounces of its tissue and that has no damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.

I have clued in, but you are clueless (or else you don't mind embarrassing yourself by pretending not to understand plain English). It is funny that you really don't seem to grasp how badly you are discrediting yourself with this nonsense.

Umm, no, the HSCA FPP's main argument against the EOP site was that it could not be correct because the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.

It is impressive and revealing that in spite of having this argument pressed against them repeatedly by eight of the nine forensic pathologists on the FPP, Finck and Boswell refused to repudiate the EOP site and insisted it was correct, and that Humes only repudiated the EOP site with great reluctance at the very end (and then retracted his repudiation and again argued for the EOP site when interviewed by JAMA in 1992).

I can't wait to see what strained, hilarious arguments you're going to make to try to explain the fact that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces and that Jackie handed Dr. Jenkins "a large chunk" of JFKs brain tissue in the Parkland ER.

How about educating you "on the evidence of a third shot"?! Well, your fellow lone-gunman theorists have already done that, but you've refused to acknowledge the evidence. You continue to cling to your ludicrous fringe theory that only two shots were fired during the assassination.

But, hey, you can take comfort in the fact that your zany theory has been endorsed by a disgraced dirty cop who admitted on tape that he had planted evidence to frame minorities, who boasted on tape about police brutality against blacks, and who was convicted of perjury, Mark Fuhrman. Congratulations!

What exactly is your point in this high pitched squeal? It has already been proven by your own expert that this whole story is nonsense. Dr Hodges clearly states the bullet entered the back of JFK’s head, tore through his brain and exited the side of his head. What truly is the point of this whole exercise? Regurgitating the same unproven nonsense is pointless. You seem to be fixated on the level of damage as proof of something. What exactly, please in ten words or less, is it proof of?

What makes this so strange is JFK really was shot in the head from behind as confirmed by your leading expert Dr Hodges. How in any way does making this ridiculous claim alter that fact. 

There is nothing new in this entire post that has not been answered in previous replies by your experts. Only you seem to think it is a confusing issue. Let's go over it one more time. The bullet struck JFK in the back of the head, proceeded through his brain after fragmenting, and exited the side the right of his head. Where is the confusion?

The Xray and brain photos are authentic; you have not cast any doubt on that fact all. They have been deemed authentic by your experts.

M Griffith:

“How does this explain the fact that Dr. Hodges undeniably endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound?”

MGiffith:

“Only a drawing of one of the autopsy brain photos has been released, but several experts have been allowed to view all the brain photos at the National Archives. Baden got to view them at length as part of the HSCA FPP's review of the medical evidence. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have also seen all the brain photos. They have confirmed Baden's statement that the brain photos show only a very small amount of missing brain tissue, no more than 2 ounces.”

Hodges refuted the findings of the Clark Panel, noting instead that

 "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."

---------------------------------
Dr hodges stated the bullet went through the occipit. The cerebellum lies below the occipit. Maybe you have different brain diagrams.

MGriffith:

“BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:”
 
“Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. (p. 3)”

Dr Hodges: “and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region”

Dr Hodges, your expert stated right occipital region vs your cerebellum, which lies below it.

Dr Hodges' statement of the bullets path is a long way from your claim of “torn through the cerebellum”

M Griffith:

“How does this explain the fact that Dr. Hodges undeniably endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound?”

------------------

No answer?

This would be a great time to show case OD measurements. Dr Mantik can use OD Measurements on the brain matter and blood cloud above JFK from the headshot in the Zapruder Film. Isn’t it your claim that it is science and works no matter what is taking place.

What brain matter was held in Jackie's hand was not part of what was blown up into the air and would have been placed back with the rest, would it not have? Dr Mantik would undoubtedly have known this, and it could be figured into his calculations because it is a science.

I doubt you have read this, it is from Dr Mantik’s reply to Pat Speer’s critique, but this is where Dr Mantik went off the rails on the X Rays having been faked. Again, where is the science in this?

“The correction of my mistake came from Arthur G. Haus and colleagues at Kodak, who advised me about image crossovers (from one side of the film to the other) in these 1960s X-rays, a technical problem that was later solved. (Initially, I had only known about modern X-ray films, where the image cannot effectively cross over from one side to the other.) The presence of such crossover in these JFK X-rays, though, re-opened the door to photographic alteration in the darkroom”

------------

If you can prove there were more than two shots, especially after admitting LHO could have only fired two shots, then get after it. To date you have not proven there even was a third shot. Until you do it, it is really hard to place any relevance of any kind on any of these rants. These theories you have presented really should begin with a disclaimer as to their accuracy.

Pat Speer was dead on: Just “blowing smoke”:

Even in the Zapruder film it can be clearly viewed that this is absolutely wrong. Do you really need an expert to look at photos and see the damage?

“4. Dr. Mantik, one of the heroes of the alteration crowd, says the x-rays are deceptive and that they actually DO show the back of the head to be missing. Does that change your impression at all? Or do you agree with the likes of...well, me...that he is blowing smoke?”

First, at a rather early stage in my OD work, after I had (wrongly) decided that the OD data were inconsistent with composite X-rays (in a widely, but privately, circulated paper, titled “2 + 2 = 4”), I had followed the data where (I thought) they led and stated that the X-rays must be authentic. Speer apparently does not know this history. The correction of my mistake came from Arthur G. Haus and colleagues at Kodak, who advised me about image crossovers (from one side of the film to the other) in these 1960s X-rays, a technical problem that was later solved