Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[Jack Nessan]

You're acting like a Flat Earther who's been confronted with satellite photography and with geographic-topographic measurements of the Earth.

Of course you WC apologists haven't "asked about" the hard science and the massive anecdotal evidence that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

LOL! Yeah, you'd rather rely on a chiropractor ("Dr." Chad Zimmerman) than on a board-certified radiation oncologist who routinely used optical-density (OD) measurements to make his diagnoses, who's had several articles on medical science published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and who also holds a doctorate in physics and taught physics at a major university.

And never mind that Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, has confirmed Dr. Mantik's OD measurements with his own independent OD measurements, hey? Just never mind that, right? You do realize that OD measurement is a recognized science, right? Right? Never mind that Dr. Fred Hodges and even Dr. Humes both said a large part of the right brain was missing, just as Dr. Mantik's OD measurements confirm, hey?

And what about all the other evidence I cited? What about Dr. Hodges' analysis of the skull x-rays? What about Humes's admission to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away? What about the eyewitness accounts of a large amount of missing brain or significant brain splatter provided by mortician Tom Robinson, Clint Hill, Dr. Grossman, Floyd Riebe, Sam Kinney, Robert McClelland, Francis O'Neill, Officer McClain, and Jack McNairy? I notice you said nothing about any of this evidence, nor about the 16 surfaces onto which bits of JFK's brain were blown.

Again, dealing with you guys is similar to dealing with members of a cult, with 9/11 Truthers, with Moon-landing deniers, etc. You know full well that you cannot explain how in the world the brain photos could be of JFK's brain given that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, given the numerous accounts of a large amount of missing brain, and given that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.

Of course you WC apologists haven't "asked about" the hard science and the massive anecdotal evidence that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

Last time I checked, Pat Speer was not a WC apologist. He has a strong opinion on Dr Mantik as basically a clown.

Pat Speer’s opinion on JFK’s headshot controversy and Dr Mantik

But here are some problems.

1. Everyone who's studied the post-mortem x-rays and compared them to JFK's pre-mortem x-rays has agreed they are of the same skull.. 

2. The autopsy report notes that the lining at the top of the brain which holds it in place was torn and loose. (This in itself is telling, as it designates the supposed exit location as an entrance.) In any event, the brain would thereby slump back in the skull when JFK was on his back. 

3. The statements about the brain being gone are almost always made in conjunction with the skull defect being massive. It's clear then. that these men were describing the wound as seen after the skull defect was enlarged and the brain removed. Jenkins, of course, is an exception, in that he was right there when the brain was removed. He said he thought the brain appeared to be small and that Humes made a comment about how easily it came out. Well, heck, this is interesting. But it more logically suggests the underside of the brain was damaged and torn from its moorings than it suggests the skull wound was expanded, the brain removed, another brain inserted, and the skull wound closed back up before the brain observed and handled by Jenkins was removed. Dr. Humes did not normally remove brains, after all. That job was usually performed by an assistant, such as Jenkins. Secondly, the brains removed by Humes were not gunshot victims, where the moorings of the brain had been torn. So his commenting on the ease with which he removed the brain need not be a reference to body alteration, etc. 

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?

From patspeer.com, Chapter 13:

Even more disturbing, a September 16, 1977 article distributed by UPI reported that Dr. Russell Morgan had spoken at Michigan State University the day before, and had told reporters that "Mr. Kennedy's X-rays showed conclusively that a single-bullet fired from behind was the cause of death" and that "Congressional investigators should concentrate on other elements in their inquiry into the assassination."

Well, this is quite interesting. The last time Dr. Morgan had been quoted in the press about the assassination was but days before Dr. Cyril Wecht was to become the first non-government-affiliated pathologist to view the assassination materials at the archives, and in effect review his findings. And now, on the day before 6 members of the HSCA pathology panel were to visit the archives and review his findings, and meet with Dr. Humes (whose findings he'd rejected), Morgan re-appears, urging that no new study of the X-rays be conducted. In this context, his words read like a threat. Should everyone to look at the autopsy materials in between these two appearances have confirmed his findings, that would be one thing...but in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, a Professor of Radiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, where Morgan served as Dean, was asked to study Kennedy's X-rays on behalf the Rockefeller Commission, and had provided them a report which directly contradicted Morgan's re-interpretation of the head wound location. Yes, in a little discussed report long withheld from the public, in a passage rarely if ever quoted before I started broadcasting it all over the internet, 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." Even worse, for Morgan, was the next line: "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." Morgan, of course, had claimed there was no wound in the occipital bone on the X-rays or photographs, and had pushed the Clark Panel into concluding the wound was actually four inches or more higher on the back of Kennedy's skull, in the parietal bone.

Hodges' then still-secret report was thus bad news for Morgan. And seeing as Morgan was Hodges' boss, it was bad news that Morgan would almost certainly have discovered. It follows then that Morgan's urging congressional investigators to forget about the X-rays and focus on other matters may not have been so innocent, and was instead a plea designed to protect his own reputation. While this might seem a little harsh, let's remember Morgan's viewpoint but five years earlier. While he once was reportedly of the opinion that the X-rays were "produced in a hurry under extremely trying conditions" and were of "poor quality" and "severely over-exposed.," and that "great care and special techniques would be required before they would show the conclusive evidence," he now claimed they "showed conclusively that a single-bullet fired from behind was the cause of death" and that no further investigation was necessary. Perhaps he'd simply changed his mind and no longer felt the cowlick entrance he'd thought he'd "discovered" was a necessary ingredient to the single-assassin conclusion, and worth verifying. Or perhaps he simply didn't care if Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy or not, as long as his own reputation was protected

[Michael T. Griffith]

I think now is a good time to point out that Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the forensic radiologist who examined the JFK autopsy skull x-rays for the ARRB, said that the AP x-ray shows "that right frontal brain is missing" and that "the extremely dark region on the A-P x-ray depicting the upper right side of the cranium" indicates "some absence of brain" (Meeting Report, ARRB, 2/29/1996, p. 1).

Obviously, this is describing much more than just 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue. In fact, keep in mind that Baden noted that "less than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing," an observation confirmed by Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser when they viewed the autopsy brain photos at the National Archives.

Predictably, Jack Nessan has trotted out Pat Speer's embarrassing, amateurish attacks on Dr. Mantik's research, even though I have repeatedly pointed out that Dr. Mantik has shredded Speer's silly criticisms. As I've noted before, Speer has a pathological bias against the idea of any evidence alteration. Most of Speer's research is solid and worthwhile, but his attacks on Dr. Mantik and other scientists who've identified evidence of alteration are silly and erroneous.

This is a perfect example of how WC apologists make this forum a merry-go-around. Nessan and others know that Dr. Mantik has answered Speer in detail, but they never tell you that when they quote Speer on evidence alteration. To get some idea of just how bad and amateurish Speer's attacks on Dr. Mantik's research are, read Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer:

https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf

As just one example of how badly Speer blunders on the skull x-rays, Speer claims that the impossible white patch on the lateral x-ray is actually the overlapping bone near the right ear. It is hard to fathom how Speer could say this with a straight face. Anyone can look at the lateral x-ray and see that the overlapping bone is clearly to the right of the white patch and has nothing to do with it. They are undeniably in two different areas on the lateral x-ray.

Similarly, Speer's explanations for the 6.5 mm object show he is far out of his field and depth on the subject. I address Speer's attempt to provide innocent explanations for the 6.5 mm object at length in my book A Comforting Lie.

Speer has further discredited himself on this subject by making the ridiculous claim that optical-density (OD) measurements are useless for measuring or identifying metal in x-rays. Such a claim shows an unfortunate and inexcusable ignorance of the science of OD measurement. Speer made this claim when I pressed him to explain the OD measurements and pointed out to him that Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist, had confirmed Dr. Mantik's OD measurements with his own OD measurements.

Now, you watch: A few days or weeks from now, Nessan or some other WC apologist will once again cite Speer's attacks on Mantik's research, and they won't say a word about Mantik's response or about my critique.

Here's what Dr. Greg Henkelmann, another radiation oncologist, who likewise uses OD measurements in his work, has said about Dr. Mantik's OD research on the autopsy x-rays:

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)

Finally, notice that not one of the responses from WC apologists in this thread offers any credible explanation for the fact that Dr. Fred Hodges noted that the skull x-rays show "a goodly portion of the right brain" is missing, that Dr. Humes admitted to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away, that mortician Tom Robinson said the amount of missing brain tissue equaled the size of a human fist, and that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.

It is simply preposterous and unserious to suggest that all the splattered/blasted brain matter that witnesses described seeing and/or feeling amounted to only 1-2 ounces.