JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

<< < (17/18) > >>

Lance Payette:
As astute readers will recall, in MTG's somewhat comical thread about "logic" and "critical thinking" in relation to the JFKA, Professor Payette noted at least two logical fallacies in MTG's original post: the ad populum (appeal to popularity) fallacy and the appeal to authority fallacy. These two are the lifeblood of MTG's thinking. This was not an inspiring start when your thread has "logic" and "critical thinking" in its very title.

Today we highlight the third leg of MTG's fallacious thinking.

Astute readers, and even complete dolts, cannot fail to notice how often - i.e., constantly - MTG employs absolutist terms such as "unsolvable," "undeniable" and "impossible." Scarcely a thread title or post of MTG's does not employ such absolutist terminology, which you "cannot refute."

This is called the absolutist language fallacy or sometimes the "black-and-white thinking" fallacy. When you add it into the mix with the appeal to popularity fallacy and appeal to authority fallacy, MTG's posts and indeed his thinking are pretty much One Big Fallacy.

The interesting part is that the psychological and sociological studies that Professor Payette often references have identified absolutist thinking and the use of absolutist language as among the hallmarks of the conspiracy-prone mindset:

"Study 2 introduced the concept of Socio-Cognitive Polarization (SCP) as a potential mediating factor. SCP encompasses xenophobia, absolutism, and conservatism—factors that have been increasingly recognized as relevant to the formation and maintenance of conspiracy beliefs (e.g., van Prooijen & van Vugt, 2018; Zmigrod et al., 2019)." Carola Salvi, Marta K. Mielicki, Alice Cancer, Paola Iannello, Tim George; "Exploring Meta-Reasoning Propositional Confidence in Conspiratorial Beliefs and Socio-Cognitive Polarization." Open Mind 2025; 9 1339–1362. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi.a.20

“Specifically, it has been shown that individuals with depression more frequently use a variety of terms that describe negative emotions, first-person pronouns (FPPs), common symptoms, and linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) categories deemed to correspond to ‘absolutist’ language.” The researchers then looked for what Cognitive Behavioural Therapists would label as “cognitive distortions’ in their speech in naturalistic conversations. Here they identified the overriding power of emotional reasoning (believing something is true because it feels true rather than because it logically makes sense)." Richard Bolstad, "Psychotherapy as Recovery from Conspiracy Theories," Transformations 2022, https://transformations.org.nz/conspiracy-therapy/

Keep this triad in mind as you giggle, titter, chortle and guffaw your way through MTG's work:

* Appeal to popularity
* Appeal to authority
* Absolutist language

Tommy Shanks:
Keep up the great work, Lance!

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: Tommy Shanks on June 17, 2026, 09:22:57 PM ---Keep up the great work, Lance!
--- End quote ---

LOL! The "great work"? You mean his continued ducking and dodging and refusal to engage on any of the facts I've presented? He still has not responded to a single fact I've documented.

His silly line of "oh the experts have looked into all this and don't agree, and so there's nothing to see here" is naked evasion. Ditto for his humorous argument that I must be wrong because I point out that the conspiracy view of the JFK case is the majority view and because I frequently cite experts to support my arguments!

To give just one example: He says he leans toward the EOP site, but he refuses to explain how he can still believe the autopsy brain photos are authentic when the FPP demonstrated beyond any rational doubt that the brain photos prove that no bullet could have entered at the EOP site. So either the EOP site did not exist or the brain photos are fraudulent. There's no third option.

John Corbett:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 06:16:02 PM ---LOL! The "great work"? You mean his continued ducking and dodging and refusal to engage on any of the facts I've presented? He still has not responded to a single fact I've documented.
--- End quote ---

You don't present facts. You present opinions. Very amateurish opinions based on a minimal amount of evidence and FUBAR figuring.
--- Quote ---
His silly line of "oh the experts have looked into all this and don't agree, and so there's nothing to see here" is naked evasion. Ditto for his humorous argument that I must be wrong because I point out that the conspiracy view of the JFK case is the majority view and because I frequently cite experts to support my arguments!
--- End quote ---

You cite cherry picked quotes taken out of context. Nowhere can you cite an expert in the field of forensic evidence who has had access to the evidence you shares your FUBAR conclusion that the autopsy photos are fraudulent. That one is all on you.

Your line of thinking demonstrates what I have said for decades. CTs don't try to explain the evidence. The invent excuses to explain away the evidence. They try to substitute their analysis of the evidence for that of recognized experts in the various technical fields. Then they get terribly frustrated when others don't accept their conclusions.
--- Quote ---

To give just one example: He says he leans toward the EOP site, but he refuses to explain how he can still believe the autopsy brain photos are authentic when the FPP demonstrated beyond any rational doubt that the brain photos prove that no bullet could have entered at the EOP site. So either the EOP site did not exist or the brain photos are fraudulent. There's no third option.

--- End quote ---

There is a third option. Your opinions are silly.

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:13:10 PM ---You don't present facts. You present opinions. Very amateurish opinions based on a minimal amount of evidence and FUBAR figuring.
--- End quote ---

So I ask you again: Were all the members of the HSCA FPP wrong when they said the brain photos categorically, irrefutably prove that no bullet could have entered at the EOP site? Were all the members of the FPP, the Clark Panel, and the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel wrong for saying the only fragment trail on the skull x-rays is the high fragment trail?

Just once, quit your juvenile ducking and dodging and try to answer these questions.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:13:10 PM ---You cite cherry picked quotes taken out of context.
--- End quote ---

Well, then surely you can provide at least one example of where I have taken a quote out of context.

Did I quote Dr. Loquvam "out of context" when I quoted his entire exchange with Finck on the fact that any bullet entering the EOP site would have had to cause subarachnoid hemorrhaging in the cerebellum but that no such hemorrhaging is seen in the cerebellum on the brain photos? How could I have quoted him "out of context" when I quoted the entire exchange?

Did I quote Dr. Hodges "out of context" when I quoted his entire statement that the skull x-rays show a goodly portion of the right side of the brain to be missing? How could I have quoted him "out of context" when I quoted his entire statement?

Did I quote Dr. Humes "out of context" when I quoted his matter-of-fact statement that 2/3 of the cerebrum was blown away? Go check his statement in the JAMA article. How did I quote him "out of context"?

Do tell me where I have quoted someone out of context. I'm assuming you understand what it means to quote someone "out of context."


--- Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:13:10 PM ---Nowhere can you cite an expert in the field of forensic evidence who has had access to the evidence you shares your FUBAR conclusion that the autopsy photos are fraudulent. That one is all on you.
--- End quote ---

Ah, so peer-reviewed published experts in radiation oncology, neurology, radiology, physics, ballistics, and neuroscience don't count, huh, including a neuroscientist who was the director of two NIH institutes and who pioneered mapping and imaging the human brain? And how about Dr. Cyril Wecht? He was a famous forensic pathologist, and in his later years he was convinced by Dr. Mantik's research that the skull x-rays have been altered.

FYI, forensic pathologists are usually not experts in reading x-rays, which is why they frequently ask a radiologist to read x-rays for them. That's why the FPP asked several radiologists to review the skull x-rays (and then they ignored all the radiologists' findings that contradicted the FPP's version of the wounds). That's why the Rockefeller Commission included Dr. Hodges on the medical panel (he was one of the foremost radiologists in the world at the time). That's why the autopsy doctors asked Dr. Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, to help with reading the x-rays.

BTW, nowhere "can you cite an expert in the field of forensic science who has had access to the evidence" and who has explained the impossible contradictions between the brain photos and the skull x-rays, who has explained the hard scientific evidence of the multiple optical-density measurements that prove the skull x-rays have been altered. Two can play your silly game of using arguments from silence.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:13:10 PM ---Your line of thinking demonstrates what I have said for decades. CTs don't try to explain the evidence.
--- End quote ---

LOL! Says the guy who is still ducking and dodging all over the place and refusing to explain the evidence from the FPP, the Clark Panel, Dr. Hodges, Dr. Baden, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Haus, Dr. Humes, etc., etc., on the drastic contradictions between the brain photos and the EOP site, between the brain photos and the skull x-rays, between the autopsy report and the skull x-rays, between the autopsy report and the brain photos.


--- Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:13:10 PM ---They invent excuses to explain away the evidence. They try to substitute their analysis of the evidence for that of recognized experts in the various technical fields.
--- End quote ---

Yeah, uh-huh. Anyone who reads this thread can see that I have repeatedly cited the analysis of "recognized experts in the various technical fields," and you are still ducking and dodging and refusing to explain their analyses.

I ask you yet again: Were the FPP members wrong when they insisted that the brain photos absolutely prove that no bullet could have entered the EOP site? Were all the members of the FPP, the Clark Panel, and the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel wrong for saying the only fragment trail on the skull x-rays is the high fragment trail? What happened to the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? How could the brain photos show JFK's brain when the skull x-rays show  2/3 of the right brain to be missing, and when this amount of missing brain in the x-rays has been confirmed by multiple OD measurements of the x-rays done by a board-certified radiation oncologist and a board-certified neurologist?


--- Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:13:10 PM ---Then they get terribly frustrated when others don't accept their conclusions. There is a third option. Your opinions are silly.
--- End quote ---

So your third option to the two other options--(1) the brain photos are fraudulent or (2) the EOP site did not exist--is that "your opinions are silly"? Really, that's your answer? Are you trying to make yourself look like a teenager who knows he's losing the argument and doesn't want to explain contrary facts?

Let me repeat the obvious: We're not just talking about my opinions. We are talking about the unanimous conclusion of the FPP members that the brain photos prove the EOP site is impossible. Yet, neuroscientist Dr. Joseph Riley and forensic anthropologist Dr. Douglas Ubelaker argued that the EOP site is visible in the autopsy photos, a conclusion that both Dr. Larry Sturdivan and Pat Speer accept, and six people at the autopsy (Humes, Finck, Boswell, Stringer, Kellerman, and O'Neil) insisted the entry wound was near the EOP.

So is the EOP site correct or are the brain photos correct? One of them has to be wrong, but you can't bring yourself to face this issue credibly and objectively.

Similarly, we are not just talking about my opinions on the brain photos vs. the skull rays. Experts from both sides of the debate have acknowledged that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, and multiple sets of OD measurements have confirmed this fact. Who has said the skull x-rays show this much missing brain? Just to refresh your memory: Dr. Hodges, Dr. Lattimer, Dr. Humes, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, medical scientist Russell Kent, Dr. Livingston, and Dr. Henkelmann (I'm assuming you are aware that Dr. Hodges, Dr. Lattimer, and Dr. Humes were lone-gunman theorists). But the brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing tissue. How can you believe the brain photos are authentic unless you reject the skull x-rays, and vice versa?

I should add that Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, who was decidedly pro-WC and anti-conspiracy, clearly seemed to indicate that the x-rays show more than just 1-2 ounces of missing brain. He did not quantify how much brain he saw missing in the x-rays, but his description sounds like it was more than just 1-2 ounces:

. . . right frontal brain is missing. . . . The extremely dark region on the A-P X-Ray depicting the upper right side of the cranium indicates both some absence of brain and the presence of air inside an open wound. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 2/9/96, p. 1)

For one thing, 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue would be very hard to spot on a skull x-ray. Ask any radiologist. And, most people would describe 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue as "a slight amount," "a little," "a very small amount," etc., not as "some absence of brain."

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page