JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos
Lance Payette:
My mother used to say, "Lance, you're like a broken record - move the needle." Tech has advanced too far to call someone a broken record; most people wouldn't know what you were talking about. But MTG does seem to have some weird loop in his head that just plays the same stuff over and over ... and over and over and over ... and .... well, anyway, what on earth is the point? It's like he's preaching to an audience of junior high schoolers who have only the vaguest notion of who JFK was.
John Corbett:
It's always amusing to see amateur sleuths try to apply their limited knowledge to a highly technical field. I prefer to go with what actual experts in the field have to say on the subject. The FPP, composed of some of the most respected medical examiners of their day including WC critic Cyril Wecht, UNANIMOUSLY concurred with the original finding that JFK was struck by two shots fired from above and behind although they did reposition where they thought the entry wound in the back of the head was.
We have a choice here. We can go with the FPP or we can go with MTG? Not a tough call for me.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 05, 2026, 11:52:24 AM ---Since we have some new participants in the forum, I'm bumping this thread. I think objective readers will see that the evidence proves that the JFK autopsy brain photos are fraudulent and cannot be photos of JFK's brain. I think objective readers will also see that lone-gunman theorists have no rational, credible explanation for this crucial evidence.
Here is a summary of the evidence:
-- Former HSCA FPP chairman Dr. Michael Baden acknowledged to famous WC defender Vincent Bugliosi that the autopsy brain photos show "less than" 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing. Bugliosi did not realize that Baden's disclosure was devastating evidence against the autopsy brain photos. Indeed, Bugliosi trumpeted Baden's disclosure to "refute" the eyewitnesses who said a large amount of JFK's brain was gone.
-- But those eyewitnesses were surely correct. Why? Because we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto 16 surfaces. Significantly, several witnesses said the tissue was gray or white. About 40% of brain tissue is gray and about 60% is white. Those 16 bits of brain tissue alone certainly added up to more than 2 ounces, not to mention that it exceeded "less than 1-2 ounces."
We also know that Jackie Kennedy brought a "large chunk of brain" into the Parkland ER and handed it to Dr. Jenkins, who then handed it to a Secret Service agent. That chunk of brain surely weighed at least 2 ounces. 2 ounces of brain tissue is about the size of a golf ball.
-- The autopsy report impossibly says JFK's brain weighed 1,500 grams. The average male brain weighs about 1,350 grams. 1,500 grams equals 53 ounces. 1,350 grams equals 47 ounces.
There is no way that JFK's brain weighed anything close to 1,500, not only because so much brain matter was blown from his skull but because the autopsy skull x-rays show at least 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, and multiple optical-density (OD) measurements of the skull x-rays confirm that only about 30% of the right brain is present in the x-rays.
This is hard scientific evidence that the brain photos are fraudulent.
In addition, it should be noted that in 1992, before any OD measurements had been done on the skull x-rays, none other than Dr. James Humes, the chief JFK autopsy doctor, admitted to JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], May 27, 1992, p. 2798).
When Humes revealed this, he was unaware that in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, the then-chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, examined the skull x-rays and found they showed a "goodly portion" of the right brain to be "missing."
BTW, the term "goodly portion" is a common and recognized idiom that means "substantial," "considerable," "sizeable." One can find the term "goodly portion" used in medical journals, including JAMA. Google AI says, "The phrase 'goodly portion' is used throughout the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and its network journals as an idiom representing a large or substantial amount."
-- A number of eyewitnesses who got good looks at the damage to JFK's head said that a substantial part of the brain was blown away. These witnesses included mortician Tom Robinson, assistant autopsy photographer Floyd Riebe, Secret Service agent Clint Hill (who stared into the large hole in JFK's head for several minutes from 3-4 feet away), and FBI agent Francis O'Neill (one of the two FBI agents who observed the autopsy, and observed it from close range most of the time).
-- The autopsy photographer, John Stringer, told the ARRB he was certain he did not take the extant autopsy brain photos.
My posts in this thread present a detailed review of this evidence, including sources. The above is just a summary. To gain a better understanding of this crucial evidence, and to see the vacuous attempts of WC apologists to explain it, I recommend going back and reading the rest of the thread.
--- End quote ---
To follow up on these points for those who have not seen any of the JFK autopsy brain photos, we should understand that the photos show a large laceration (cut) on the right side of the brain, as if someone took a knife and made a nearly straight cut from back to front/front to back just to the right of the midline of the brain, but they show virtually no missing brain tissue.
Dr. Baden's admission that the autopsy brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing tissue may even be something of an overstatement. When neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser examined the autopsy brain photos, he could discern virtually no missing tissue.
Crucially, Dr. Chesser also saw (1) no damage whatsoever to the cerebellum except for a “tiny sliver hanging loose” from the bottom of the cerebellum, and (2) no damage to the rear area of the right occipital lobe, yet the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report would have required the bullet to tear through the top part of the cerebellum and through the rear part of the right occipital lobe.
If one assumes a somewhat upward trajectory for the bullet that hit slightly above the EOP, it could have barely missed the cerebellum, but it could not have missed the rear section of the right occipital lobe. The HSCA forensic experts cited this fact as "incontrovertible" evidence against the autopsy report's placement of the rear head entry wound.
Another powerful point of evidence against the autopsy brain photos, and it's a point I haven't mentioned yet, is that if the righthand temporal-parietal explosion seen in the Zapruder film is authentic, there should be a sizable defect, a sizable area of missing brain tissue, in the right side of the temporal and parietal lobes in the brain photos, but no such defect is there.
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 06, 2026, 12:20:06 PM ---To follow up on these points for those who have not seen any of the JFK autopsy brain photos, we should understand that the photos show a large laceration (cut) on the right side of the brain, as if someone took a knife and made a nearly straight cut from back to front/front to back just to the right of the midline of the brain, but they show virtually no missing brain tissue.
Dr. Baden's admission that the autopsy brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing tissue may even be something of an overstatement. When neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser examined the autopsy brain photos, he could discern virtually no missing tissue.
Crucially, Dr. Chesser also saw (1) no damage whatsoever to the cerebellum except for a “tiny sliver hanging loose” from the bottom of the cerebellum, and (2) no damage to the rear area of the right occipital lobe, yet the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report would have required the bullet to tear through the top part of the cerebellum and through the rear part of the right occipital lobe.
If one assumes a somewhat upward trajectory for the bullet that hit slightly above the EOP, it could have barely missed the cerebellum, but it could not have missed the rear section of the right occipital lobe. The HSCA forensic experts cited this fact as "incontrovertible" evidence against the autopsy report's placement of the rear head entry wound.
Another powerful point of evidence against the autopsy brain photos, and it's a point I haven't mentioned yet, is that if the righthand temporal-parietal explosion seen in the Zapruder film is authentic, there should be a sizable defect, a sizable area of missing brain tissue, in the right side of the temporal and parietal lobes in the brain photos, but no such defect is there.
--- End quote ---
It's truly amazing how an amateur such as yourself looking at just the few autopsy photos that were leaked to the public is able to see things that were missed by a panel of some of the most highly regarded forensic medical examiners in the country who had access to all the autopsy photos and x-rays and which were of much higher quality than those that you have seen.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 06, 2026, 02:03:26 PM ---It's always amusing to see amateur sleuths try to apply their limited knowledge to a highly technical field. I prefer to go with what actual experts in the field have to say on the subject.
--- End quote ---
You know very little about the case and repeatedly avoid dealing with contrary facts by either making erroneous appeals to authority or engaging in circular reasoning. It is clear you have done minimal reading on the case and have only read one side.
"Actual experts," huh? Let's see:
Was Dr. Fred Hodges, the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, an actual expert? He advised the Rockefeller Commission that the skull x-rays showed a substantial portion of the right brain to be missing.
Was Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian and one of the ARRB's three forensic consultants, an actual expert? Among other things, he noted that the damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front. Perhaps his exact words should be quoted:
The damage pattern (displacement of scalp and bone) evident when viewing the photos showing the right side of the head and right shoulder (#s 5 6 26 27 and 28) and the photos showing the superior view of the head (#s 7 8 9 10 32 33 34 35 36 and 37) is suggestive of a head wound resulting from a bullet traversing from front-to-rear from the front or right front. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 2)
Is Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist who has examined the autopsy photos and x-rays at the National Archives, an actual expert? He says the x-rays totally contradict the brain photos and that multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays prove they have been altered.
Is Dr. David Mantik, a board-certified radiation oncologist and a former professor of physics whose research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, an actual expert? Dr. Mantik has repeatedly examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and has interviewed the autopsy radiologist and several of the autopsy medical technicians. He has also done multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays and has found hard scientific evidence that they've been altered. He has even been able to duplicate how they were altered. He is the one who discovered the presence of several tiny metal fragments inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays.
Were the four members of the Clark Panel, who were considered among the leading forensic experts in their day, actual experts? They said the autopsy materials indicated the ammo that hit JFK's head was fired from a high-velocity rifle: "These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet travelling at high velocity. . . ." (Clark Panel report, p. 8 ). I trust you know that the FBI's chief firearms expert, Robert Frazier, advised the WC that the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle:
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
Was Dr. Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropologist from the Smithsonian who was consulted by the HSCA FPP, an actual expert? His reconstruction of the head damage destroyed the FPP's version of the head shot, which is why the FPP simply ignored it. I'm sure this is news to you. Here's an article on the FPP's stunning dismissal of Dr. Angel's head-damage reconstruction written by John Hunt, one of the most respected and careful researchers in the research community:
The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
And on and on and on we could go.
--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 06, 2026, 02:03:26 PM ---The FPP, composed of some of the most respected medical examiners of their day including WC critic Cyril Wecht, UNANIMOUSLY concurred with the original finding that JFK was struck by two shots fired from above and behind although they did reposition where they thought the entry wound in the back of the head was.
We have a choice here. We can go with the FPP or we can go with MTG? Not a tough call for me.
--- End quote ---
This nonsense alone proves you have no business discussing the JFK case. You can't even get basic stuff right. FYI, Wecht did not concur with the single-bullet theory, did not concur that only three shots were fired (partly because he correctly insisted that Connally must have been hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JFK in the back), did not concur that the residual defect could not be an additional entry wound, and did not concur that only one bullet hit the head, among other objections that he raised. Good grief, have you not read Wecht's dissent to the FPP's findings? It's in 7 HSCA 199-209.
Wecht specifically argued that the forensic evidence suggested that JFK's head may have been hit by frangible ammo, not just FMJ ammo:
A soft-nose bullet or some other type of relatively frangible ammunition that would have disintegrated upon impact could have struck the right side of JFK's head in the parietal region Inasmuch as there is a large defect of JFK's skull in this area it is not possible to rule out the existence of a separate entrance wound at the site. Since this kind of ammunition would not have penetrated deeply into the brain there would be no evidence of damage to the left cerebral hemisphere nor would there be fragments of such a missile deposited in the left side of the brain Also there would not be a separate exit wound if this kind of ammunition had been used. (7 HSCA 201)
Oh, yes, the FPP did "reposition" the rear head entry wound--yeah, by a staggering 4 inches. They floated the absurd scenario that the three autopsy doctors somehow, someway mistook a wound that was above the lambdoid suture and the lambda for a wound that was a whopping 4 inches lower and only 1 cm above the EOP, an astonishing error that not even a first-year medical student could make.
They had to float this preposterous scenario because they and the HSCA's trajectory expert realized that the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report was impossible to align back to the sixth-floor window--unless JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck.
Despite intense pressure and outright brow-beating by the FPP majority, Finck and Boswell fiercely refused to go along with this fantasy and insisted the rear head wound was very near the EOP as stated in the autopsy report. Humes only went along with this nonsense at the very end of the hearings and only after he was publicly and private badgered and insulted--yet later Humes repudiated his revision and again insisted that the autopsy report's location for the wound was correct. Several autopsy witnesses have confirmed the EOP location.
--- Quote from: John Corbett on June 06, 2026, 02:03:26 PM ---It's truly amazing how an amateur such as yourself looking at just the few autopsy photos that were leaked to the public is able to see things that were missed by a panel of some of the most highly regarded forensic medical examiners in the country who had access to all the autopsy photos and x-rays and which were of much higher quality than those that you have seen.
--- End quote ---
This polemic again proves you don't know what you're talking about and are not to be taken seriously. I'm not sure how you have failed to grasp that I've been talking about much, much more than my own analysis of the autopsy photos. I've barely mentioned my own observations about the autopsy photos. Somehow you have missed the fact that I've cited (1) statements regarding the autopsy brain photos made by recognized experts who have examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, (2) Baden's statement to Bugliosi, (3) the accounts of several eyewitnesses who got good, close looks at JFK's brain, (4) statements by witnesses who saw brain tissue and fluid from JFK's brain splattered on numerous surfaces, (5) statements by forensic experts on the behavior of FMJ vs. frangible bullets, and (6) statements by numerous experts on the obvious conflicts between the skull x-rays and the brain photos.
There's a reason that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world doesn't buy your lone-gunman mythology.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version