Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[Michael T. Griffith]

You don't present facts. You present opinions. Very amateurish opinions based on a minimal amount of evidence and FUBAR figuring.

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.

You cite cherry picked quotes taken out of context.

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."

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.

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.

Your line of thinking demonstrates what I have said for decades. CTs don't try to explain the evidence.

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.

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.

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?

Then they get terribly frustrated when others don't accept their conclusions. There is a third option. Your opinions are silly.

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."

[John Corbett]

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.

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."

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.

You have made the statement that the skull x-rays were altered. Never mind how you alter an x-ray. You now claim that 40 some years after reviewing the x-rays, he believed they were altered. Funny how he never got that idea when he was actually looking at the -x-rays. Neither did anybody else on the FPP. What would be the point of altering the x-rays? Why would somebody want to deliberately misrepresent where the bullet entered the skull?

There appears to be a difference of opinion between the autopsy team and the FPP as to where the bullet actually entered JFK's skull. Does it really matter? They all agree the bullet entered the back of JFK's head. That is consistent with that shot being fired from the sniper's nest. There is ample forensic evidence that Oswald was the one who fired that shot from the rifle he purchased the previous March from Klein's. There is zero forensic or medical evidence of any other shot from any other location striking JFK. That is what is important.

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.

A radiation oncologist isn't an expert in reading x-rays either. They too will consult with a radiologist to read the x-rays. A forensic pathologist does have a lot more experience reading x-rays of gunshot victims than a radiation oncologist.

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.

The contradictions are regarding where the bullet entered the back of the head. There is no disagreement from the qualified medical examiners that the bullet did enter the back of the head.

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.

I've explained this to you before but I'll type a little slower this time in hopes you can follow along this time. I have not seen the medical evidence myself and even if I had, I am totally unqualified to analyze it. That's why I leave it to the people who are qualified. That doesn't include you. All the qualified people that I am aware of who have seen the medical evidence have agreed that JFK was shot in the back of the head. The crime scene forensic evidence tells us unequivocally that he was shot in the back of the head by LHO. I have no idea why you spend so much mental energy fretting over the exact location of the entry wound.

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]

I don't give a shit who was right and who was wrong as to precisely where the bullet entered JFK's skull. These anomalies don't change the fact that all these experts agree JFK was shot in the back of the head. That is what matters, because we have all he evidence we need to prove Oswald was the one who fired the shot. You should really focus on what is important.

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?

No. That is a viable third option.

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 tell us what all these opinions you've cited means as far as determining who shot JFK.

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.

Yes, if there is a disagreement as to where the bullet entered the back of JFK's head, they both can't be right. Congratulations on figuring that one out, Columbo. Where would we be without you?

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 haven't seen the brain photos and neither have you. If either of us had seen them, we are not qualified to analyze them.

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:

So somebody made a  mistake about how much brain was blown away. BFD.

. . . 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."

Fascinating. Now tell us who you think shot JFK.