Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[Michael T. Griffith]

Of course, another severe problem with the undamaged cerebellum seen in the autopsy brain photos is that several of the Dallas doctors, including a neurosurgeon, said the cerebellum was damaged and protruding and oozing/dripping from the right-rear exit wound.

Keep in mind, too, that cerebellar tissue is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue because it has a very different appearance, and the cerebellum is located directly behind the lower half of the occipital bone.

Dr. Kemp Clark, Parkland Hospital's chief neurosurgeon, examined JFK's head and reported that the large head wound exposed the cerebellum and that damaged cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound because the wound included part of the occiput. From his WC testimony:

I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. (6 H 20)

From Dr. Clark's 11/22/63 summary report:

Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . .
         
There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . .  There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

Yet, the autopsy brain photos show the cerebellum undamaged and entirely intact and connected with the surrounding brain regions, and don't even show any pre-mortem bleeding of the cerebellum, as HSCA FPP member Dr. George Loquvam pointed out to Dr. Finck.

Dr. Clark's report of damaged cerebellar tissue exposed by a large wound in the right-rear part of the skull is supported by several other medical witnesses. For example, Dr. Robert McClelland noted the large right-rear wound and said some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out:

I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. (6 H 34)

Dr. Malcolm Perry:

I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal-occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue. (3 H 372)

The brain tissue behind the occiput consists of the cerebellum and the right and left occipital lobes, but the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and the occipital lobes.

Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:

There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392)

Dr. Charles Carrico:

. . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. (6 H 3)

The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipito-parietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. . . . There was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura. (6 H 6)

In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said,

The other wound was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound. (7 HSCA 268)

But, again, in the autopsy brain photos, the cerebellum is undamaged and intact, is not the least bit dislodged from the rest of the brain, and does not even show any pre-mortem bleeding. The HSCA FPP members (except for Dr. Wecht) repeatedly pointed this out to the autopsy doctors to try to get them to repudiate the EOP site.

I should add that John T. Stringer, the autopsy photographer, when asked what he recalled about the cerebellum before looking at the brain photos, said the cerebellum was "damaged, lacerated, cut" (Deposition of John Stringer, ARRB, 7/16/96, pp. 225-226).

Finally, as many here know, the existence of the large right-rear head wound, i.e., the large right occipital-parietal head wound, was confirmed by the Parkland nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze to prepare the body for the casket, by Secret Service agent Clint Hill in his first report on the shooting and in later statements, and by numerous witnesses at the autopsy, including the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy.

[Jack Nessan]

Of course, another severe problem with the undamaged cerebellum seen in the autopsy brain photos is that several of the Dallas doctors, including a neurosurgeon, said the cerebellum was damaged and protruding and oozing/dripping from the right-rear exit wound.

Keep in mind, too, that cerebellar tissue is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue because it has a very different appearance, and the cerebellum is located directly behind the lower half of the occipital bone.

Dr. Kemp Clark, Parkland Hospital's chief neurosurgeon, examined JFK's head and reported that the large head wound exposed the cerebellum and that damaged cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound because the wound included part of the occiput. From his WC testimony:

I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. (6 H 20)

From Dr. Clark's 11/22/63 summary report:

Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . .
         
There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . .  There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

Yet, the autopsy brain photos show the cerebellum undamaged and entirely intact and connected with the surrounding brain regions, and don't even show any pre-mortem bleeding of the cerebellum, as HSCA FPP member Dr. George Loquvam pointed out to Dr. Finck.

Dr. Clark's report of damaged cerebellar tissue exposed by a large wound in the right-rear part of the skull is supported by several other medical witnesses. For example, Dr. Robert McClelland noted the large right-rear wound and said some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out:

I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. (6 H 34)

Dr. Malcolm Perry:

I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal-occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue. (3 H 372)

The brain tissue behind the occiput consists of the cerebellum and the right and left occipital lobes, but the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and the occipital lobes.

Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:

There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392)

Dr. Charles Carrico:

. . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. (6 H 3)

The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipito-parietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. . . . There was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura. (6 H 6)

In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said,

The other wound was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound. (7 HSCA 268)

But, again, in the autopsy brain photos, the cerebellum is undamaged and intact, is not the least bit dislodged from the rest of the brain, and does not even show any pre-mortem bleeding. The HSCA FPP members (except for Dr. Wecht) repeatedly pointed this out to the autopsy doctors to try to get them to repudiate the EOP site.

I should add that John T. Stringer, the autopsy photographer, when asked what he recalled about the cerebellum before looking at the brain photos, said the cerebellum was "damaged, lacerated, cut" (Deposition of John Stringer, ARRB, 7/16/96, pp. 225-226).

Finally, as many here know, the existence of the large right-rear head wound, i.e., the large right occipital-parietal head wound, was confirmed by the Parkland nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze to prepare the body for the casket, by Secret Service agent Clint Hill in his first report on the shooting and in later statements, and by numerous witnesses at the autopsy, including the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy.

Cerebral is a reference to the brain as a whole brain, not just the cerebellum. You understand that right?

It appears Dr Hodges is no longer the expert doctor on the damage to the brain? Probably because he does not state what you want. Hodges does not support your belief that a bullet passed through the cerebellum.

You want the cerebellum to be where the bullet traveled, and according to your expert, Dr Hodges, it did not. First you trot Dr Hodges out as an expert, and now you are no longer supporting what he stated?

Maybe in your rush to try and prove this bullet passing through the cerebellum nonsense, you did not notice none of these doctors quoted in this post describe a bullet passing through the cerebellum. That is just your imagination working overtime.

Everyone of these doctors describe a wound that enters the back of the head, fragments or explodes in the brain, and exits above the right ear. Where is the conspiracy in this post?

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

The damage to the brain being described by you is a result of the bullet fragmenting and exiting the side of the skull not a bullet passing through the brain. Just like the doctors state.

Pat Speer:

4. The damage to the underside of the brain, which was described by Humes and others, even Chesser, is not shown in the drawing published by the HSCA, which is a view from above. No view of the underside has ever been made available

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.”

MGriffith:

“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.”

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

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.”

Herniated indicates that the brain protruded out, not the bullet passed through it.

Dr. JENKINS - ........ I was aware of the magnitude of the wound, because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay.

“The damage to the underside of the brain, which was described by Humes and others, even Chesser[/[/u]b], is not shown in the drawing published by the HSCA,”

They stated “underside”of the brain---Not a bullet passing through it.

Nowhere are they supporting your statements of a bullet passing through the cerebellum. They state they see it, but that in no way indicates the bullet hit it.

-----------

These statements are just wrong. The bullet proceeded on a diagonal but straight through the skull back to front, because JFK’s head was tilted down.

M Griffith:

“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.”

“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.”

Mr. SPECTER - The physicians, surgeons who examined the President at the autopsy specifically, Commander James J. Humes, H-u-m-e-s (spelling); Commander J. Thornton Boswell, B-o-s-w-e-l-l (spelling), and Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, F-i-n-c-k (spelling), expressed the Joint opinion that the wound which I have just described as being 15 by 6 mm. and 2.5 cm. to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberant was a point of entrance of a bullet in the President's head at a time when the President's head was moved slightly forward with his chin dropping into his chest, when he was riding in an open car at a slightly downhill position. With those facts being supplied to them in a hypothetical fashion, they concluded that the bullet would have taken a more or less straight course, exiting from the center of the President's skull at a point indicated by an opening from three portions of the skull reconstructed, which had been brought to them---would those findings and those conclusions be consistent with your observations if you assumed the additional facts which I have brought to your attention, in addition to those which you have personally observed?
Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir.
 

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

So you're straining and dodging right out of the gate. Speaking of the explosion of brain and blood seen in the Zapruder film, are you seriously suggesting that the brain matter blown out of the head in Z313-316 amounted to no more than 2 ounces?

Again, bits of JFK's brain ended up on 16 surfaces, a fact that you continue to ignore. Most of the pieces were blown out, while a few of them fell out at the hospital, such as the pieces that dripped onto the cart in the ER--and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain that Jackie brought into the ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins.

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?

LOL! Say what?! Where in the autopsy brain photos do you see a separate "large chunk" of brain tissue? Yikes! 

Brain tissue is not like clay. You can't just take a large piece of brain tissue that has been blown out of the brain and press it against the rest of the brain to reattach it. You understand that, right? Right? Yes?

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.

What? Huh? Just how ridiculous can you get? The large chunk of brain that Jackie handed it to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER was not in the skull when the x-rays were made.

It almost sounds like you're claiming that Dr. Humes somehow obtained the large chunk of brain before taking the skull x-rays, then pushed the large chunk back into the skull, and then took the skull x-rays! You're not stooping to that depth of absurdity, are you?

If so, I'll just say that it is mighty strange that there is no record of a large chunk of brain being brought to the autopsy, much less that Dr. Humes received a large chunk of brain at the start of the autopsy and then pushed it back into the skull before the skull x-rays were taken!

You see, the problem is that you just can't bring yourself to face the fact that far more brain tissue was blown out of JFK's brain than is missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos, and that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, which is vastly more brain tissue than is missing from the brain in the autopsy brain photos. 

We haven't even talked about the impossible brain weight recorded by the autopsy doctors: 1,500 grams. The average male brain weighs about 1,350 grams. After the shooting, JFK's brain could not have weighed more than 900 grams.

And I see you still can't even muster up enough objectivity and credibility to at least admit that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You're like a Flat Earther who can't bring himself to admit that satellite imagery is not a recognized, established science. Here are more sources on the fact that OD measurement is an established science:

https://www.cet-science.com/products/testing-methods/biological-analysis/optical-density-measurement-od600/
EXCERPT: Optical density measurement (OD or OD600) is used in microbiology to estimate the concentration of bacteria or other cells in a liquid.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/optical-density
EXCERPT: Optical density (OD) is defined as a measure based on the linear relationship between light absorbance and particle concentration, commonly used for its speed and cost-effectiveness in monitoring biological samples. It is often applied at specific wavelengths to minimize background noise, particularly in bacterial cultures and microalgae measurements. . . . Optical density is measured by an instrument known as a densitometer, which incorporates a small light source, generally 1–2 mm in diameter, and a light detector.

FYI, Dr. Mantik, who recently retired from his career as a radiation oncologist, used a densitometer when he did his OD measurements on the JFK skull x-rays.

Google AI overview: Radiation oncologists use optical density measurement, often by scanning specially prepared films or dosimeters, to quantify and verify radiation dose distributions in treatment planning and delivery. The optical density of a scanned film is converted into a digital map of the radiation dose, allowing for the precise verification of the treatment plan. This process helps ensure the prescribed dose is accurately delivered to the tumor while minimizing harm to surrounding healthy tissues.

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.

Oh my goodness. You have once again completely misunderstood Dr. Mantik's point. I'm trying to fathom how you could so totally misread what Dr. Mantik is saying. Let me try to explain it to you in the simplest terms possible:

Dr. Mantik initially believed the skull x-rays had to be authentic because their images appeared on both emulsions, on both sides of the film. At the time, he believed that the x-ray film used in the 1960s would have prevented a great deal of light from crossing over from one side of the film to the other, and that therefore the film would not allow enough crossover light to produce an image on the other side of the film, i.e., on both emulsions. Thus, he concluded the skull x-rays had not been altered because he believed that an altered image could not have been copied onto double-emulsion film. But, he later learned from two experts at Kodak, including Dr. Haus, that this was not the case.

Here is Dr. Mantik's explanation on this issue in his first article on his OD measurements of the skull x-rays:

Standard X-ray film, on the other hand, has an emulsion on both sides---and so did these autopsy X-ray films! This surprising observation put me off the scent for a while. I was not familiar with double-sided emulsions being used for making copies. If these films had had images on just one side, I might still have been able to argue that they were copies.

But then I noticed that the image appeared on both emulsions! I could conclude this because the emulsion had peeled off in several places so that I could see one emulsion at a time. Actually, I used the background grid lines on the film for this purpose, which was just as good. There were about 2.3 lines per millimeter, and with my glasses off I could see these well. I also used a high-power microscope to confirm that the image occurred on both sides; because the depth of field was so shallow, I could focus on one side at a time. This observation made me think that the films had to be originals. . . .

From my training in radiation oncology, I had remembered that not too much light crosses over from one emulsion to the other in an x-ray film. Such crossover is considered undesirable because it tends to fuzz out the image. Then one day I phoned the experts at Kodak. Two of them got on the line, including Arthur G. Haus, Director of Medical Physics, and we a had a round table discussion. (I later had the pleasure of meeting Haus at one of my specialty meetings in Los Angeles; he also graciously reviewed this article for me.)

In the course of that conversation, they stunned me. They said that for film in the 1960s, a great deal of light could cross over from one side to the other--sometimes even enough to produce a nearly equal image on both sides, even though it was exposed to light from only one side!

So there, at last, was the explanation. In the early 1960s, nothing special had to be done to copy a superior image onto a double-emulsion film. Furthermore, the image would be nearly equal (and of good quality) on both emulsions, just as I had seen on the autopsy films. That was because the 1960s films were not as good as our present ones--crossover is more limited nowadays. (See Arthur G. Haus, 1995, Characteristics of Screen-Film Combinations for Conventional Medical Radiography, Eastman Kodak Publication No. N-319.) (Assassination Science, pp. 133-135)

[Jack Nessan]

So you're straining and dodging right out of the gate. Speaking of the explosion of brain and blood seen in the Zapruder film, are you seriously suggesting that the brain matter blown out of the head in Z313-316 amounted to no more than 2 ounces?

Again, bits of JFK's brain ended up on 16 surfaces, a fact that you continue to ignore. Most of the pieces were blown out, while a few of them fell out at the hospital, such as the pieces that dripped onto the cart in the ER--and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain that Jackie brought into the ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins.

LOL! Say what?! Where in the autopsy brain photos do you see a separate "large chunk" of brain tissue? Yikes! 

Brain tissue is not like clay. You can't just take a large piece of brain tissue that has been blown out of the brain and press it against the rest of the brain to reattach it. You understand that, right? Right? Yes?

What? Huh? Just how ridiculous can you get? The large chunk of brain that Jackie handed it to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER was not in the skull when the x-rays were made.

It almost sounds like you're claiming that Dr. Humes somehow obtained the large chunk of brain before taking the skull x-rays, then pushed the large chunk back into the skull, and then took the skull x-rays! You're not stooping to that depth of absurdity, are you?

If so, I'll just say that it is mighty strange that there is no record of a large chunk of brain being brought to the autopsy, much less that Dr. Humes received a large chunk of brain at the start of the autopsy and then pushed it back into the skull before the skull x-rays were taken!

You see, the problem is that you just can't bring yourself to face the fact that far more brain tissue was blown out of JFK's brain than is missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos, and that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, which is vastly more brain tissue than is missing from the brain in the autopsy brain photos. 

We haven't even talked about the impossible brain weight recorded by the autopsy doctors: 1,500 grams. The average male brain weighs about 1,350 grams. After the shooting, JFK's brain could not have weighed more than 900 grams.

And I see you still can't even muster up enough objectivity and credibility to at least admit that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You're like a Flat Earther who can't bring himself to admit that satellite imagery is not a recognized, established science. Here are more sources on the fact that OD measurement is an established science:

https://www.cet-science.com/products/testing-methods/biological-analysis/optical-density-measurement-od600/
EXCERPT: Optical density measurement (OD or OD600) is used in microbiology to estimate the concentration of bacteria or other cells in a liquid.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/optical-density
EXCERPT: Optical density (OD) is defined as a measure based on the linear relationship between light absorbance and particle concentration, commonly used for its speed and cost-effectiveness in monitoring biological samples. It is often applied at specific wavelengths to minimize background noise, particularly in bacterial cultures and microalgae measurements. . . . Optical density is measured by an instrument known as a densitometer, which incorporates a small light source, generally 1–2 mm in diameter, and a light detector.

FYI, Dr. Mantik, who recently retired from his career as a radiation oncologist, used a densitometer when he did his OD measurements on the JFK skull x-rays.

Google AI overview: Radiation oncologists use optical density measurement, often by scanning specially prepared films or dosimeters, to quantify and verify radiation dose distributions in treatment planning and delivery. The optical density of a scanned film is converted into a digital map of the radiation dose, allowing for the precise verification of the treatment plan. This process helps ensure the prescribed dose is accurately delivered to the tumor while minimizing harm to surrounding healthy tissues.

Oh my goodness. You have once again completely misunderstood Dr. Mantik's point. I'm trying to fathom how you could so totally misread what Dr. Mantik is saying. Let me try to explain it to you in the simplest terms possible:

Dr. Mantik initially believed the skull x-rays had to be authentic because their images appeared on both emulsions, on both sides of the film. At the time, he believed that the x-ray film used in the 1960s would have prevented a great deal of light from crossing over from one side of the film to the other, and that therefore the film would not allow enough crossover light to produce an image on the other side of the film, i.e., on both emulsions. Thus, he concluded the skull x-rays had not been altered because he believed that an altered image could not have been copied onto double-emulsion film. But, he later learned from two experts at Kodak, including Dr. Haus, that this was not the case.

Here is Dr. Mantik's explanation on this issue in his first article on his OD measurements of the skull x-rays:

Standard X-ray film, on the other hand, has an emulsion on both sides---and so did these autopsy X-ray films! This surprising observation put me off the scent for a while. I was not familiar with double-sided emulsions being used for making copies. If these films had had images on just one side, I might still have been able to argue that they were copies.

But then I noticed that the image appeared on both emulsions! I could conclude this because the emulsion had peeled off in several places so that I could see one emulsion at a time. Actually, I used the background grid lines on the film for this purpose, which was just as good. There were about 2.3 lines per millimeter, and with my glasses off I could see these well. I also used a high-power microscope to confirm that the image occurred on both sides; because the depth of field was so shallow, I could focus on one side at a time. This observation made me think that the films had to be originals. . . .

From my training in radiation oncology, I had remembered that not too much light crosses over from one emulsion to the other in an x-ray film. Such crossover is considered undesirable because it tends to fuzz out the image. Then one day I phoned the experts at Kodak. Two of them got on the line, including Arthur G. Haus, Director of Medical Physics, and we a had a round table discussion. (I later had the pleasure of meeting Haus at one of my specialty meetings in Los Angeles; he also graciously reviewed this article for me.)

In the course of that conversation, they stunned me. They said that for film in the 1960s, a great deal of light could cross over from one side to the other--sometimes even enough to produce a nearly equal image on both sides, even though it was exposed to light from only one side!

So there, at last, was the explanation. In the early 1960s, nothing special had to be done to copy a superior image onto a double-emulsion film. Furthermore, the image would be nearly equal (and of good quality) on both emulsions, just as I had seen on the autopsy films. That was because the 1960s films were not as good as our present ones--crossover is more limited nowadays. (See Arthur G. Haus, 1995, Characteristics of Screen-Film Combinations for Conventional Medical Radiography, Eastman Kodak Publication No. N-319.) (Assassination Science, pp. 133-135)

So you're straining and dodging right out of the gate. Speaking of the explosion of brain and blood seen in the Zapruder film, are you seriously suggesting that the brain matter blown out of the head in Z313-316 amounted to no more than 2 ounces?

Yes. Dr Baden weighed it. I bet Jackie's “chunk” was in there.  Scales aren’t allowed in conspiracy land?
 
Again, bits of JFK's brain ended up on 16 surfaces, a fact that you continue to ignore. Most of the pieces were blown out, while a few of them fell out at the hospital, such as the pieces that dripped onto the cart in the ER--and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain that Jackie brought into the ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins.

Give an estimate of weight on each of the sixteen surfaces. Better yet give an estimate on the amount produced in the Zapruder Film. Call Dr Mantik, he can estimate it with OD, or don’t you think it has yet reached science level.

LOL! Say what?! Where in the autopsy brain photos do you see a separate "large chunk" of brain tissue? Yikes! 
 
Brain tissue is not like clay. You can't just take a large piece of brain tissue that has been blown out of the brain and press it against the rest of the brain to reattach it. You understand that, right? Right? Yes?

I was thinking of a specimen jar but feel free to provide an explanation for disposition that you think is better.
----------------

What? Huh? Just how ridiculous can you get? The large chunk of brain that Jackie handed it to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER was not in the skull when the x-rays were made.

OK. Sounds like a drama queen but just for the record describe and give a weight for a “large chunk”
 
It almost sounds like you're claiming that Dr. Humes somehow obtained the large chunk of brain before taking the skull x-rays, then pushed the large chunk back into the skull, and then took the skull x-rays! You're not stooping to that depth of absurdity, are you?

No, I can’t because you are firmly planted between myself and “that depth of absurdity”.
 
If so, I'll just say that it is mighty strange that there is no record of a large chunk of brain being brought to the autopsy, much less that Dr. Humes received a large chunk of brain at the start of the autopsy and then pushed it back into the skull before the skull x-rays were taken!

You brought it up; you are now saying you didn’t believe what you previously posted?
 
You see, the problem is that you just can't bring yourself to face the fact that far more brain tissue was blown out of JFK's brain than is missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos, and that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, which is vastly more brain tissue than is missing from the brain in the autopsy brain photos. 

Again, give the estimate by surface when it is convenient, or a total estimated amount would work too, and we can estimate by dividing by 16.
 
We haven't even talked about the impossible brain weight recorded by the autopsy doctors: 1,500 grams. The average male brain weighs about 1,350 grams. After the shooting, JFK's brain could not have weighed more than 900 grams.

Sounds like a proclamation. Maybe JFK did not consider himself average. What are you basing your expertise in brain weights on?
 
And I see you still can't even muster up enough objectivity and credibility to at least admit that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You're like a Flat Earther who can't bring himself to admit that satellite imagery is not a recognized, established science. Here are more sources on the fact that OD measurement is an established science:
 
https://www.cet-science.com/products/testing-methods/biological-analysis/optical-density-measurement-od600/
EXCERPT: Optical density measurement (OD or OD600) is used in microbiology to estimate the concentration of bacteria or other cells in a liquid.
 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/optical-density
EXCERPT: Optical density (OD) is defined as a measure based on the linear relationship between light absorbance and particle concentration, commonly used for its speed and cost-effectiveness in monitoring biological samples. It is often applied at specific wavelengths to minimize background noise, particularly in bacterial cultures and microalgae measurements. . . . Optical density is measured by an instrument known as a densitometer, which incorporates a small light source, generally 1–2 mm in diameter, and a light detector.
 
FYI, Dr. Mantik, who recently retired from his career as a radiation oncologist, used a densitometer when he did his OD measurements on the JFK skull x-rays.

Has it been a science from the beginning of time? Dr Mantik called it “experimental” when he was describing it. As memory serves “experimental” is not considered a science. The science of experimental OD does not sound right.
--------------

Oh my goodness. You have once again completely misunderstood Dr. Mantik's point. I'm trying to fathom how you could so totally misread what Dr. Mantik is saying. Let me try to explain it to you in the simplest terms possible:
 
Dr. Mantik initially believed the skull x-rays had to be authentic because their images appeared on both emulsions, on both sides of the film. At the time, he believed that the x-ray film used in the 1960s would have prevented a great deal of light from crossing over from one side of the film to the other, and that therefore the film would not allow enough crossover light to produce an image on the other side of the film, i.e., on both emulsions. Thus, he concluded the skull x-rays had not been altered because he believed that an altered image could not have been copied onto double-emulsion film. But, he later learned from two experts at Kodak, including Dr. Haus, that this was not the case.
 
Here is Dr. Mantik's explanation on this issue in his first article on his OD measurements of the skull x-rays:
 
Standard X-ray film, on the other hand, has an emulsion on both sides---and so did these autopsy X-ray films! This surprising observation put me off the scent for a while. I was not familiar with double-sided emulsions being used for making copies. If these films had had images on just one side, I might still have been able to argue that they were copies.
 
But then I noticed that the image appeared on both emulsions! I could conclude this because the emulsion had peeled off in several places so that I could see one emulsion at a time. Actually, I used the background grid lines on the film for this purpose, which was just as good. There were about 2.3 lines per millimeter, and with my glasses off I could see these well. I also used a high-power microscope to confirm that the image occurred on both sides; because the depth of field was so shallow, I could focus on one side at a time. This observation made me think that the films had to be originals. . . .
 
From my training in radiation oncology, I had remembered that not too much light crosses over from one emulsion to the other in an x-ray film. Such crossover is considered undesirable because it tends to fuzz out the image. Then one day I phoned the experts at Kodak. Two of them got on the line, including Arthur G. Haus, Director of Medical Physics, and we a had a round table discussion. (I later had the pleasure of meeting Haus at one of my specialty meetings in Los Angeles; he also graciously reviewed this article for me.)
 
In the course of that conversation, they stunned me. They said that for film in the 1960s, a great deal of light could cross over from one side to the other--sometimes even enough to produce a nearly equal image on both sides, even though it was exposed to light from only one side!
 
So there, at last, was the explanation. In the early 1960s, nothing special had to be done to copy a superior image onto a double-emulsion film. Furthermore, the image would be nearly equal (and of good quality) on both emulsions, just as I had seen on the autopsy films. That was because the 1960s films were not as good as our present ones--crossover is more limited nowadays. (See Arthur G. Haus, 1995, Characteristics of Screen-Film Combinations for Conventional Medical Radiography, Eastman Kodak Publication No. N-319.) (Assassination Science, pp. 133-135)

Oh, this explains everything. So much better. Did you even read it or just cut and paste it for the post?

Maybe give the Dr Mantik story a rest. He said what he said and did what he did, an explanation from you does not change anything. He declared the photos as being faked and described all of the mistakes he made. You should read the link about Pat Speer that you posted. 

Where are Dr Hodges’s quotes about the damage? I did not see them posted with your explanation for why they do not support what you have posted.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Perhaps now is a good time to discuss more of the evidence that the cowlick entry site is bogus and that the EOP site is correct.

Before I do so, let's consider the wildly implausible scenario proposed by the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel (except for Dr. Hodges), and the HSCA FPP: Two pathologists (Humes and Boswell) and a forensic pathologist (Finck) shockingly mistook a wound in the cowlick for a wound slightly above the EOP, a stunning blunder of 10 cm or 4 inches (actually, 63/1000ths of an inch shy of 4 inches: 3.937 inches), and that they committed this astounding blunder even though they had several prominent reference points to use in identifying the wound's location, i.e., the hairline, the EOP, the lambda, the lambdoid suture, and the sagittal suture.

Both the WC and the HSCA diagrams of the large exit wound show that the lambda, the lambdoid suture, and the sagittal suture would have still been intact and plainly visible when the autopsy doctors reflected the scalp. The now-debunked cowlick site was allegedly located right around 1.7 cm above the lambda, 0.8 cm to the right of the sagittal suture, and 2.5 cm above the lambdoid suture. The lambda is about 4 inches above the EOP.

Obviously, an entry wound 1.7 cm (0.66 inches) above the lambda, 0.8 cm (0.31 inches) to the right of the sagittal suture, and 2.5 cm (1 inch) above the lambdoid suture would be nowhere near the EOP, much less the hairline. Indeed, such a wound would clearly not even be in the occipital bone at all--it would be in the parietal bone.

To accept the cowlick site, one would have to believe that the autopsy doctors somehow, someway closely examined a wound that was above and to the right of three clear reference points on the skull and that was obviously in the parietal bone but mistook it for a wound that was 4 inches lower and in the right-middle part of the occipital bone, even after they reflected the scalp.

Now, let us examine some of the evidence relating to the cowlick site and the EOP site:

-- The top-of-head autopsy photos (such as photo F7) show intact cerebral cortex at the cowlick site, as neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph N. Riley pointed out. Thus, no bullet could have entered there. I'll return to this point later in this reply

-- There is no fragment trail near the cowlick site. The high fragment trail is 1.9 inches (5 cm) above the cowlick site.

-- The 6.5 mm object in the outer table of the skull is not at the cowlick site but is 1 cm below it. Virtually everyone now acknowledges that the 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment. But, until the 1990s, everyone believed it was a bullet fragment, including the Clark Panel and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP). Dr. Larry Sturdivan, the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant, says the following about the FPP's use of the 6.5 mm object as evidence of the cowlick entry site:

This second bit of evidence was discussed several times during the meetings of the FPP and is mentioned by Dr. Baden as a “relatively large metal fragment” in his majority report in the open hearings. It is interesting that it was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their proposed entry site. A fully-jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but will not fragment on the outside of the skull. (The JFK Myths, p. 184)

-- The McDonnel fragment on the outer table of the skull is a genuine bullet fragment, but it is 1 cm below and to the left of the cowlick site.

-- Not a single witness at the autopsy said the rear head entry wound was in the cowlick. Every autopsy witness who commented on the wound's location said it was near the hairline. JFK's hairline was about 1 inch below the EOP. Thus, a wound "slightly above" the EOP would certainly be near the hairline. (In his HSCA testimony, Dr. Finck seemed to define "slightly above" as being right around 1 cm, or 0.39 inches, or 1/100th of an inch less than 4/10ths of an inch.)

-- Chief autopsy photographer John Stringer, Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, military aide Richard Lipsey, and FBI agent Francis O'Neill said the rear head entry wound was near the hairline. Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey drew wound diagrams for the HSCA and placed the wound low on the back of the head and near the hairline. Stringer specified that the wound was "very close" to the EOP.

-- Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told the HSCA that the rear head entry wound was located where the autopsy doctors said it was located. Dr. Ebersole's HSCA wound diagram places the wound very close to the EOP and near the hairline.

-- One of the important disclosures that came from the ARRB releases in the mid-1990s is the fact that two “angle lines” were drawn on the right lateral skull x-ray and that the lines converge at the EOP site. In their report on their five-hour November 1966 review of the autopsy materials, the autopsy doctors specifically described those lines as “angle lines.” One of the lines goes upward at a 32-degree angle from the EOP site to a spot on the high point of the forehead. The other line goes straight through the area of the subcortical damage described in the autopsy report, the same damage discussed in detail by Dr. Riley in his two articles on the evidence that two bullets hit the skull.

-- Another key disclosure from the ARRB materials is the fact that Dr. Ebersole confirmed that a large piece of occipital bone arrived from Dallas during the autopsy. This lends credence to Dr. Boswell's disclosure to the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment from Dallas.

Of course, Dr. Ebersole's disclosure about a large occipital bone fragment creates a severe problem for the autopsy photos of the back of head (photos F3 and F5), because those photos show no bone missing from the occiput.

The late-arriving skull fragment may well have been the Harper Fragment, which appears to contain about one-third to one-half of a small circular wound on one of its edges. The only three pathologists who handled and examined the Harper Fragment itself said it was occipital bone. The three pathologists were Dr. A.B. Cairns, the chief pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas, and Dr. Jack Harper and Dr. Gerard Noteboom, who were also pathologists at Methodist Hospital.

When Dr. Mantik interviewed Dr. Noteboom in a recorded interview in November 1992, Dr. Noteboom confirmed that the Harper Fragment was occipital bone and that he actually held the fragment in his hands as he examined it.

Predictably, the Harper Fragment disappeared after the FBI gave it to Dr. George Burkley. We have the two FBI photos of the fragment, but not the fragment itself. Again, the only three pathologists who handled and examined the fragment itself said it was occipital bone. 

-- When Dr. Finck was asked about the cowlick site during the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, he adamantly rejected it. The subject arose because the Clark Panel's report, which puts the rear head entry wound in the cowlick, 10 cm above the EOP site, had recently been released. Here's what Dr. Finck said:

I saw that wound of entry in the back of the head at approximately 1 inch or 25 millimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters [10 cm] above it. (Clay Shaw trial transcript, 2/26/69, p. 23, HSCA record number 180-10097-10185)

-- As documented in previous replies, Dr. Fred Hodges, the only radiologist on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel, said the autopsy photos and x-rays supported the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound in the right occiput.

-- Dr. Randy Robertson, a diagnostic radiologist, argues that the skull x-rays support the EOP site. Among many other points, Dr. Robertson notes that the angle lines drawn on the right lateral skull x-ray are virtually identical to the trajectory lines drawn by medical illustrator Harold Rydberg on CE 388, the WC's diagram of JFK's head wounds:

By an amazing coincidence the pencil lines drawn on the lateral skull x-ray match almost to the degree the trajectory lines present on CE 388. They both measure very close to 32 degrees. It is beyond my imagination to believe that these matching trajectory lines were drawn on CE 388 without the direct or indirect use of the measurements off the lateral skull x-ray. Interestingly the perspective of CE 388 is in the same straight side view of the head just as the lateral x-rays. There are strong implications that the x-rays were used as a template for CE 388. . . . When CE 388 and the lateral skull x-ray are compared side by side you see that they both intersect the skull at the same level--slightly above the EOP. ("The Tell Tale Trajectory Lines," http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Robertson%20Randolph%20H%20Dr/Item%2005.pdf)

-- Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, concluded that the autopsy photos and x-rays support the EOP site and destroy the cowlick site. Excerpts from his two articles on the subject:

In the "top of head" autopsy photographs, intact cerebral cortex is visible. (This has been confirmed in personal communications from Dr. Robert Artwohl and Dr. David Mantik, both of whom visited the archives. What is unappreciated is that this cortex (superior parietal lobule) corresponds to the HSCA's entrance site. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

The HSCA forensics panel provided an illustration of the back of the head showing the wound in the scalp (first figure, far left) and contended that this illustrated a wound in the "cowlick" area. There are numerous problems with this contention. The single sole objective measurement provided by the HSCA is that the wound was located 13 cm from the first prominent crease in the neck.

There are numerous problems with this description (e.g., how can it be 13 cm from the base of the neck and 10 cm above the external occipital protuberance?). However, when 13 cm is measured on a scale drawing (bottom, far left; bar represents 13 cm), the scalp wound is not located even remotely close to the "high" entrance wound. When this location is compared to the X-rays, it corresponds exactly to the point identified above (bottom, far right) [the EOP site]. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

The Panel [the FPP] devoted much of its discussion of the scalp wound to refuting Humes' placement of the wound near the hairline. Unfortunately, other than asserting that the photographs show the wound in the "cowlick" area and relying on visual impressions from the photographs, the Panel fails to present any objective evidence that the scalp wound corresponds to where the Panel locates the wound on the x-rays. The question remains: based on the location of the scalp wound, where is the entrance wound on the skull? Two lines of evidence indicate that the entrance wound is not where the panel places it.

First, the Panel asserts that the scalp wound is located in the "cowlick" area. Apparently the Panel believes that the visual impression of the combed hair establishes the location of the wound.

However, it is standard forensic procedure to comb the hair around a scalp wound in order to better display it. Obviously that is the reason that the hair is parted since John Kennedy parted his hair on the opposite side of his head. In addition, even a cursory look at a picture of John Kennedy shows that his cowlick is inches above the top of the ear. The scalp wound cannot be in the cowlick area.

Rather than relying upon visual impressions, the Panel should have used objective reference points to establish the location of the scalp wound. For example, the top of the ear may be used as a reference point. In Fig. IA, a line is drawn from the top of the ear perpendicular to the ruler. This line passes through the wound. Fig. IB, from the HSCA report, is a representation of the back of John Kennedy's head. A line drawn from the top of one ear to the other approximates the level of the wound in Fig. 1A. This line falls inches below the point determined by the Panel and places the wound in the occipital bone and near the point of entry described by Humes et al. and illustrated by Boswell on the autopsy sheet (Fig. 1E).

In the sole objective measurement the Panel makes, it notes that the scalp wound is 13 cm above the neck crease in the photograph. As shown in Fig. IC, 13 cm above the neck crease is consistent with the description of Humes et al. but incompatible with the Panel's location of the entrance wound. ("The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy," The Third Decade, March 1993,   pp. 6-7, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf)

[Tommy Shanks]

Michael T. Griffith has become the Jim Hargrove of this forum -- endlessly writing the same thousands of words over and over about subjects nobody ever asked to debate with him, while ignoring any actual evidence that deflates his "all the evidence is faked" garbage.

[Michael T. Griffith]

As stated earlier, if you believe the autopsy photos of the brain are genuine, you must reject the EOP site as the location of the rear head entry wound; but, if you accept the EOP site, you must reject the brain photos. Why? Because the brain photos show no damage or bleeding to the cerebellum, not even in the immediate area behind the EOP entry site, and no damage to the rear portion of the right and left occipital lobes.

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) stressed the fact that the brain photos do not show the damage to the cerebellum and the occipital lobes that would have occurred if a bullet had entered at the EOP site:

The panel notes that the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum is virtually intact. It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report. There is no damage in the area of the brain corresponding to the piece of brain tissue on the hair which the autopsy pathologists told the panel was the entrance wound. (7 HSCA 129)

After saying that the photos of the brain support the FPP's higher placement of the rear head entry wound (i.e., the now-debunked cowlick site), the FPP report says that panel member Dr. Earl Rose wanted to emphasize, on behalf of the majority of the panel, that the lack of injury on the inferior (lower) part of the brain is "incontrovertible" evidence that the location of the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report is wrong:
         
One panel member, Dr. Rose, wishes to emphasize the view of the majority of the panel (all except Dr. Wecht) that the absence of injury on the inferior surface the brain offers incontrovertible evidence that the wound in the President's head is not in the location described in the autopsy report. (7 H 115)

Another member of the FPP, Dr. Charles Petty, noted the virtually pristine condition of the cerebellum and pointed out to Humes and Boswell that the brain photos also show no damage to the rear part of the occipital lobes:

Dr. PETTY. Well we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain and if this wound were way low we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes, and this has concerned us right down the line as to where precisely the inshoot wound was, and this is why we found ourselves in a quandary and one of the reasons that we very much wanted to have you come down today. (7 HSCA 259)

The conflict between the brain photos and the EOP site was highlighted when Dr. Pierre Finck was interviewed by the FPP, especially when he was questioned by FPP member Dr. George Loquvam. The transcript of the interview was supposed to remain sealed for 50 years, but it was released in the 1990s by the ARRB.

Dr. Loquvam made the logical point that if a bullet entered at the EOP site, the photos of the brain would show substantial damage to the cerebellum, but that they show no such damage. Dr. Loquvam noted that he saw no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum, not even any bleeding (hemorrhaging/hemorrhage).

In his first response to Loquvam’s crucial point, Finck floated the strange argument that a bullet could have entered at the EOP site without damaging brain tissue and without even causing any hemorrhaging/hemorrhage (bleeding). Loquvam was incredulous at this response and asked, “You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?” Finck could not explain this contradiction and replied that he could not answer the question. Let us read the exchange:
         
Dr. Loquvam. If a missile had entered at this point, would it have entered the posterior cranial vault and produced subarachnoid hemorrhage in the cerebellar hemisphere?

I have pointed to color picture No. 43 at the point of entrance that Dr. Finck is saying the entrance is and I am referring to the four color photographs of the brain in which I see no subarachnoid hemorrhage other than postmortem.

My question is, if this is the point of entrance, isn't that at the level of the posterior cranial vault where the cerebellar hemispheres lie and would we not see subarachnoid hemorrhage if a slug had torn through there?

Dr. Finck. Not necessarily because you have wounds without subarachnoid hemorrhage.
         
Dr. Loquvam. You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?

Dr. Finck. I don't know. I cannot answer your question. (HSCA Medical Panel Meeting transcript, March 11, 1978, p. 97)

The problem for the lone-gunman theory is that the EOP site is surely correct. Finck and Boswell never caved to the FPP's pressure to repudiate the EOP site but doggedly insisted it was correct. Humes doggedly defended the EOP site until almost the very end, until just before he was to be questioned by HSCA deputy chief counsel Gary Cornwell in a public hearing and was warned by an FPP member (probably Dr. Petty or Dr. Spitz) that Cornwell would treat him as a hostile witness if he did not repudiate the EOP site. When Humes was interviewed by JAMA in 1992, however, he reversed himself and said the EOP site was correct. In addition, Humes, Boswell, and Finck all told the ARRB that the EOP site was correct.

As I've discussed in earlier replies, subsequent research has validated the EOP site and debunked the cowlick site.