Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[Jack Nessan]

IOW, you'll take the guy who dropped out of college and who worked in the entertainment industry as a marketer and seller, while I'll take the guy who holds an MD in radiation oncology, who worked as a board-certified radiation oncologist for decades, who used OD measurements frequently in his work, who holds a PhD in physics, who taught physics at a major university, and who has had several articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

This is not a bit surprising. Readers should keep in mind that you belong to a tiny fringe of the lone-gunman camp, that your zany version of the shooting is rejected even by the vast majority of your fellow lone-gunman theorists.

I recommend that those interested in doing further reading on OD measurements and the JFK skull x-rays read Dr. Mantik's 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis. It is available in paperback, digital (Kindle), and audio. In the book, Dr. Mantik more fully refines and explains his OD research, partly with the aid of additional OD measurements done with Dr. Doug DeSalles.

For example, regarding the impossible white patch seen on the lateral skull x-rays, Dr. Mantik and Dr. DeSalles performed OD measurements on the skull x-rays of nine other deceased persons in gunshot-to-head cases to serve as controls. They found that the contrast between the light and dark areas on those skull x-rays was only a fraction of the contrast on JFK’s lateral autopsy skull x-rays.

They obtained a range of OD measurements between the brightest and darkest areas on the nine skull x-rays. In general, the brightest areas of the nine coroner’s cases transmitted about two or three times as much light as the darkest areas, a vastly lower light-to-dark contrast than that seen on the JFK lateral x-rays.

On the right lateral JFK skull x-ray, Dr. Mantik took numerous OD measurements of two specific areas: the extremely bright area located anatomically behind the ear, i.e., the impossible white patch, and the very dark area in the front of the skull on the right lateral x-ray.

Amazingly, on the right lateral x-ray, OD measurements revealed that the white patch transmitted about 1,100 times more light than the very dark area in the front of the skull. In striking contrast, on the nine control x-rays from coroner's cases of gunshot-to-head victims, the ratio was only about 2 or 3 to 1 between the brightest area and the darkest area on each lateral x-ray.

These nine control cases, including all of their OD measurements, are discussed at length in Appendix F in Dr. Mantik's book. I quote from Appendix F:

These images [the control x-rays], made on DuPont X-ray film, were collected by Dr. Douglas DeSalles from a coroner’s file dating to the 1960s and early 1970s. DeSalles and I together measured these ODs. Contrary to the JFK X-ray films, no large areas of whiteness or blackness were seen on any of these films.

Three showed small black areas at the anterior tip of the frontal lobe—consistent with brain loss from this site. Measurements were made on nine of these skulls; the other ten did not appear visibly different in any way and were not specifically measured.

For the nine cases above, five sites were randomly selected in each frontal area and five in each posterior area. Means (averages) were obtained and ratios calculated. Case number six, with the highest ratio of 3.89, did have numerous tiny metal fragments in the frontal area; this somewhat higher ratio may have resulted from some missing frontal lobe.

The very low ODs in cases four and nine resulted from quite improper exposure times; despite this, however, the transmission ratios of 1.26 and 0.78 fell within the range of the other seven cases. It is striking that four of the nine cases actually showed greater whiteness (transparency) in the anterior area, i.e., the transmission ratios were less than one!

The primary point, though, is that none of these ratios was remotely like the JFK lateral autopsy films, where the ratio (P/F) was greater than one thousand.

Also recall that JFK had two lateral autopsy X-ray films; both were quite anomalous. By contrast, JFK’s premortem transmission ratios were not remarkable. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, Post Hill Press, 2024, pp. 498-499)

For the benefit of interested readers, Dr. Mantik provides several helpful appendices on OD measurements and the production of x-rays in the 1960s:

Appendix B: The Science and Mathematics of Optical Density

Appendix C: How Were X-rays Copied in 1963?

Appendix D: How Could X-rays Be Altered in 1963?

Appendix E: Patients’ Skull ODs

Appendix F: Forensic Skull ODs Coroner’s Cases: Death via Headshots Skull X-rays in Nine (of 19) Coroner’s Cases

Finally, I should add that only about 15% of my OP deals with Dr. Mantik's research as it relates to the conflict between the autopsy brain photos and the skull x-rays. You'd never know this to read the grasping, labored replies from WC apologists. The OP also discusses Dr. Fred Hodges' finding that the AP skull x-ray shows "a goodly portion" of the right brain to be missing, that Dr. Humes said that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away, that mortician Tom Robinson said the amount of missing brain equaled the size of a human fist, that several other witnesses said the brain was missing a substantial amount of tissue, and that bits of brain matter from JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.

Your pseudo expert with all of your favorite alphabet letters behind his name only seems interested in defending OD as a type of science when it is not. Don’t forget Dr Mantik also has microscope eyes. He sees things nobody else can see.

OD is not a science. Rejected by the science community. Dr Mantik’s defense of it did not help.

"Goodly portion.” What does that mean? A portion of a portion of a part? Also "apparently"? Was he estimating or guessing?

How about a definition in ounces as to what that means. Most likely it equates to 1 to 2 ounces. Just like Dr. Baden stated.

-----------

Interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as an example.  He does not confirm your EOP site nor cerebellum damage.

“In 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, was asked to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission. Among other things, he noted in his report that a "goodly portion" of the right brain was "missing":”

P and two lateral views show. . . . A goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing and the anterior part of the right cranial cavity contains air. ("Kennedy-Connally Shooting," report prepared for the Rockefeller Commission, April 1975, p. 2, available at https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3)

 

M Griffith:“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.”

Here is what Dr Hodges stated:

“"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. 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."

No mention of either EOP or Cerebellum. Cam you explain why you think it should have damaged the cerebellum, but your chosen expert states it did not?

Just curious but do you see something in the Zapruder film that makes you think JFK did not suffer a head wound or was it just a different head wound? That would not make any sense.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dear Comrade Griffith, If true, was it an honest slipup, or the work of one of your "twenty to thirty" multi-tasking bad guys?-- Tom

Well, first off, there's no "if" here. There's no doubt that the brain photos do in fact show a brain with less than 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, whereas the skull x-rays show much more missing brain matter.

You ask, "Was it an honest slipup?" Oh, yes, it most certainly was a blunder. But, you have to keep in mind that everyone thought the autopsy materials would remain sealed until 2038. They were originally sealed by executive order for 75 years, along with all the other unpublished WC records, so the plotters assumed no one would see the autopsy photos and x-rays until 2038, and by that time every adult who was alive when JFK was shot would be dead.

Similarly, all the unpublished HSCA materials, including the unpublished interviews with the autopsy witnesses and the Parkland witnesses, were originally sealed for 50 years, so no one was supposed to see them until 2029. But then along came the movie JFK, then the JFK Records Act, and then the ARRB.

The cover-up began to unravel when Jim Garrison began his investigation in late 1966 and brought Clay Shaw to trail in 1969. Garrison's team raised enough valid questions about the autopsy findings that the DOJ felt compelled to convene the Clark Panel in early 1968 to rubber stamp the autopsy report.

But, by then then plotters had realized that even though the autopsy report gave the version of the shooting that they wanted, it contained a few key facts that had to be repudiated or covered up, especially the location of the rear head entry wound, the reference to the low fragment trail, and the failure to mention the high fragment trail.

Thus, the plotters added the 6.5 mm object to the AP x-ray in order to further incriminate Oswald and to make the case for moving the rear entry wound by a whopping 4 inches at least seem plausible, at least on its face. The forgers had enough sense to ghost the 6.5 mm image over the smaller genuine fragment in the rear outer table of the skull, ensuring that the two images would align vertically.

If they had not done this, i.e., if the 6.5 mm object were substantively higher or lower than where it is now, the forgery of the object would have been obvious--at the very least, the object would have aroused suspicion. If the 6.5 mm object did not align vertically with the small fragment, nobody would have identified the small fragment as the companion image of the 6.5 mm object. Without a partner image for the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays, the 6.5 mm object would have been exposed as an impossibility.

This vertical alignment was part of the reason that so many experts erroneously concluded that the two images were the same fragment. For example, the HSCA medical panel noted that the AP x-ray shows the 6.5 mm object to be "in approximately the same vertical plane as in the above-described lateral view."

The forgery of the 6.5 mm object was not perfect, but it was good enough to fool every expert who examined the x-rays for over three decades.

The forgers should have created an object on the lateral x-rays that matched the 6.5 mm object in size, density, and brightness, but this would have required a more complicated double exposure than the 6.5 mm object, and they may have assumed that placing the 6.5 mm object over the image of the small back-of-head fragment would suffice (it did for over three decades).

Plus, the science of optical density analysis of x-rays was barely in its infancy in 1963, so the forgers had no idea that one day scientists would detect their fakery with OD analysis.

[Tommy Shanks]

Thus, the plotters added the 6.5 mm object to the AP x-ray in order to further incriminate Oswald and to make the case for moving the rear entry wound by a whopping 4 inches at least seem plausible, at least on its face. The forgers had enough sense to ghost the 6.5 mm image over the smaller genuine fragment in the rear outer table of the skull, ensuring that the two images would align vertically.

This is the level of absurdity Michael Griffith would have us believe: imaginary "forgers" who are so adept at their imaginary jobs that they can fool every medical expert who ever examined the materials with the exception of the miraculous Dr. David Mantik. Come on now...

[Michael T. Griffith]

Another autopsy witness who confirmed the EOP entry site was Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman:

KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here. . . .
SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?
KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?
KELLERMAN: The little finger.
SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
KELLERMAN: Right. (2 H 81)

Kellerman confirmed this location when he drew a diagram of JFK's wounds for the HSCA. He put the rear head entry wound near the EOP and nowhere near the cowlick site.

Kellerman HSCA Wound Diagram
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i5dGWlyyDjlH6VtkDz1La4JQvVJ6-TKl/view?usp=sharing

It cannot be emphasized often enough that if the autopsy doctors were right about the location of the rear head entry wound (and they surely were), the brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain.

The HSCA FPP used the reverse of this point to try to get the autopsy doctors to repudiate the EOP entry site and embrace the cowlick entry site. The FPP pressed the autopsy doctors with the argument that the brain photos prove that no bullet could have entered at the EOP site because they show no damage to the cerebellum. IOW, if the brain photos are correct, the autopsy report's location for the wound must be grossly in error (by a whopping 4 inches).

Yet, Finck and Boswell refused to budge and insisted that the rear head entry wound was where the autopsy report places it, slightly above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP. In several instances they used the hairline as a reference point, in addition to the EOP.

I have never seen a WC apologist take note of the fact that when the FPP were asking Dr. Finck to identify the EOP site on the back-of-head autopsy photos, at one point Finck asked, "How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy?"

At almost the very last minute, after doggedly defending the EOP site, Humes finally caved in to the FPP and went along with the cowlick site. Yet, when he was interviewed by JAMA, he reverted to the EOP site.

The people who supplied the autopsy brain photos believed the photos showed damage that roughly/generally corresponded to the damage described in the autopsy report. They loosely approximated a back-to-front would track. But, they made two glaring errors: One, they failed to provide photos of a brain that showed substantial tissue loss. Two, they failed to provide photos of a brain that showed a wound track that began in the righthand side of the cerebellum and that did substantial damage to the cerebellum.

Bethesda Naval Hospital included a college of pathology, so there was no shortage of cadaver brains on hand. The forgers either (1) took an intact brain and shot a bullet through it or cut it and then photographed it, or (2) took photos of the brain of a person who'd been shot in the head.

Again, by September 1964, the plotters undoubtedly believed that their medical-evidence forgeries were "good enough" because the autopsy photos and x-rays were sealed for 75 years by a presidential order. They surely reasoned, "Hey, by the time these materials are released, we will all be dead, and 99% of all other people who are adults right now will be dead too, and those few who aren't dead will be too old to care about this stuff."

[Jack Nessan]

Another autopsy witness who confirmed the EOP entry site was Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman:

KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here. . . .
SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?
KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?
KELLERMAN: The little finger.
SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
KELLERMAN: Right. (2 H 81)

Kellerman confirmed this location when he drew a diagram of JFK's wounds for the HSCA. He put the rear head entry wound near the EOP and nowhere near the cowlick site.

Kellerman HSCA Wound Diagram
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i5dGWlyyDjlH6VtkDz1La4JQvVJ6-TKl/view?usp=sharing

It cannot be emphasized often enough that if the autopsy doctors were right about the location of the rear head entry wound (and they surely were), the brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain.

The HSCA FPP used the reverse of this point to try to get the autopsy doctors to repudiate the EOP entry site and embrace the cowlick entry site. The FPP pressed the autopsy doctors with the argument that the brain photos prove that no bullet could have entered at the EOP site because they show no damage to the cerebellum. IOW, if the brain photos are correct, the autopsy report's location for the wound must be grossly in error (by a whopping 4 inches).

Yet, Finck and Boswell refused to budge and insisted that the rear head entry wound was where the autopsy report places it, slightly above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP. In several instances they used the hairline as a reference point, in addition to the EOP.

I have never seen a WC apologist take note of the fact that when the FPP were asking Dr. Finck to identify the EOP site on the back-of-head autopsy photos, at one point Finck asked, "How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy?"

At almost the very last minute, after doggedly defending the EOP site, Humes finally caved in to the FPP and went along with the cowlick site. Yet, when he was interviewed by JAMA, he reverted to the EOP site.

The people who supplied the autopsy brain photos believed the photos showed damage that roughly/generally corresponded to the damage described in the autopsy report. They loosely approximated a back-to-front would track. But, they made two glaring errors: One, they failed to provide photos of a brain that showed substantial tissue loss. Two, they failed to provide photos of a brain that showed a wound track that began in the righthand side of the cerebellum and that did substantial damage to the cerebellum.

Bethesda Naval Hospital included a college of pathology, so there was no shortage of cadaver brains on hand. The forgers either (1) took an intact brain and shot a bullet through it or cut it and then photographed it, or (2) took photos of the brain of a person who'd been shot in the head.

Again, by September 1964, the plotters undoubtedly believed that their medical-evidence forgeries were "good enough" because the autopsy photos and x-rays were sealed for 75 years by a presidential order. They surely reasoned, "Hey, by the time these materials are released, we will all be dead, and 99% of all other people who are adults right now will be dead too, and those few who aren't dead will be too old to care about this stuff."

SA Kellerman is your new expert, really. Yeah, why not, of course he would know

What happened to Dr. Hodges as your expert?  Like Dr. Mantik, he will be missed. Are you running out of experts? Pretty soon the only expert left will be yourself and maybe a mouse in the corner.

Let's look back:

MGriffith “The OP also discusses Dr. Fred Hodges' finding that the AP skull x-ray shows "a goodly portion" of the right brain to be missing, that Dr. Humes said that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away”

Interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as your expert.  He does not confirm your EOP site nor cerebellum damage.

M Griffith:“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.”

Here is what Dr Hodges stated:
 
“"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. 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."
 
No mention of either EOP or Cerebellum. Cam you explain why you think it should have damaged the cerebellum, but your chosen expert states it did not?

Actually, can you explain why you believe there was a third shot. That would go a long way in helping to understand this so-called conspiracy you have created.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I see Jack Nessan is doing more straining and blundering, even to the point of making the hilarious claim that "OD is not a science." Humm, tell that to the thousands of radiation oncologists and other scientists who use OD measurements in their work. Clearly, he still has not bothered to read Dr. Mantik's OD research. Here are some other sources on the science of OD measurement:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b61c/98657a5333aa4076b02de8f3f62ba03b6180.pdf

https://www.idex-hs.com/contact/contact-us/faqs/optical-filters-faqs/what-is-optical-density

https://www.aapm.org/meetings/02am/pdf/8321-71068.pdf

https://www.bmglabtech.com/en/blog/optical-density-for-absorbance-assays/

SA Kellerman is your new expert, really. Yeah, why not, of course he would know.

This is your answer to the fact that Kellerman got a prolonged look at JFK's wounds and said the rear head entry wound was at the EOP? No one said Kellerman was an "expert." You don't have to be an expert to see that a small wound is near the hairline and the EOP and not a whopping 4 inches higher in the cowlick.

What happened to Dr. Hodges as your expert? . . . Interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as your expert.  He does not confirm your EOP site. . . .

Wrong again. Hodges did confirm the EOP site. You'd better go back and read what he said on pp. 2-3. He specifically mentioned "a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region" (p. 3), and he specified that the "x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput" (p. 3). You even quoted these statements, but obviously did not understand them.

The debunked cowlick site was claimed to be above the occiput and in the right parietal bone, about 0.8 cm to the right of the sagittal suture and 1.7 cm above the lambda. The EOP site is in the righthand side of the occiput, i.e., "the right occiput."

. . . nor cerebellum damage.

I never said he confirmed cerebellar damage. He neither confirmed nor denied cerebellar damage, i.e., damage to the cerebellum. He made no comment either way on it.

You keep dancing around the core problems:

(1) The autopsy photos, the autopsy doctors, several experts, and several eyewitnesses support the EOP site, but the brain photos do not show the damage that would have been done by the EOP-site bullet. Any bullet entering at the EOP site would have torn through the cerebellum, but the brain photos show a virtually intact cerebellum.

(2) We know that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, and several witnesses reported that a substantial portion of the brain was blown away, and, crucially, the skull x-rays show a large amount of the right brain missing, but the brain photos show a brain that is missing "less than" 1-2 ounces of brain tissue.

Another strong line of evidence that proves that the autopsy photos are not of JFK's brain is the evidence that there were two supplemental brain exams, that Finck was excluded from the first brain exam, that the official autopsy photographer did not take the brain photos in evidence, and Finck's comment that the brain looked different at the brain exam he attended than it did at the autopsy. Doug Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for military records at the time, compiled this evidence in a 32-page ARRB memo, a memo that the Washington Post found convincing:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_BrainExams.pdf

Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, noted that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex at the location of the alleged cowlick entry wound:

There is no entrance wound where the HSCA locates it. The autopsy photographs show intact cerebral cortex at the point that the HSCA claims is an entrance wound. This is confirmed by correct interpretation of the X-rays. (https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

Riley also noted that there is no connection between the high fragment trail and the cavitation wound, which is well below that trail, and that the cavitation wound is consistent with the EOP entry site:

The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. . . .

The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. . . .
         
There are clear signs of an entrance wound where it was described by the prosectors. (https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

Simply put, the autopsy materials show two separate, unconnected wound paths through JFK's head, one near the top of the skull (the high fragment trail) and the other several inches lower, proving beyond any doubt that two bullets hit the head. This is one of the reasons the autopsy doctors said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report or in their testimony. The other reason was that they knew there was no rear entry wound that corresponded with the high fragment trail.

[Jack Nessan]

I see Jack Nessan is doing more straining and blundering, even to the point of making the hilarious claim that "OD is not a science." Humm, tell that to the thousands of radiation oncologists and other scientists who use OD measurements in their work. Clearly, he still has not bothered to read Dr. Mantik's OD research. Here are some other sources on the science of OD measurement:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b61c/98657a5333aa4076b02de8f3f62ba03b6180.pdf

https://www.idex-hs.com/contact/contact-us/faqs/optical-filters-faqs/what-is-optical-density

https://www.aapm.org/meetings/02am/pdf/8321-71068.pdf

https://www.bmglabtech.com/en/blog/optical-density-for-absorbance-assays/

This is your answer to the fact that Kellerman got a prolonged look at JFK's wounds and said the rear head entry wound was at the EOP? No one said Kellerman was an "expert." You don't have to be an expert to see that a small wound is near the hairline and the EOP and not a whopping 4 inches higher in the cowlick.

Wrong again. Hodges did confirm the EOP site. You'd better go back and read what he said on pp. 2-3. He specifically mentioned "a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region" (p. 3), and he specified that the "x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput" (p. 3). You even quoted these statements, but obviously did not understand them.

The debunked cowlick site was claimed to be above the occiput and in the right parietal bone, about 0.4 cm to the right of the sagittal suture and 0.5 cm above the lambda. The EOP site is in the righthand side of the occiput, i.e., "the right occiput."

I never said he confirmed cerebellar damage. He neither confirmed nor denied cerebellar damage, i.e., damage to the cerebellum. He made no comment either way on it.

You keep dancing around the core problems:

(1) The autopsy photos, the autopsy doctors, several experts, and several eyewitnesses support the EOP site, but the brain photos do not show the damage that would have been done by the EOP-site bullet. Any bullet entering at the EOP site would have torn through the cerebellum, but the brain photos show a virtually intact cerebellum.

(2) We know that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, and several witnesses reported that a substantial portion of the brain was blown away, and, crucially, the skull x-rays show a large amount of the right brain missing, but the brain photos show a brain that is missing "less than" 1-2 ounces of brain tissue.

Another strong line of evidence that proves that the autopsy photos are not of JFK's brain is the evidence that there were two supplemental brain exams, that Finck was excluded from the first brain exam, that the official autopsy photographer did not take the brain photos in evidence, and Finck's comment that the brain looked different at the brain exam he attended than it did at the autopsy. Doug Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for military records at the time, compiled this evidence in a 32-page ARRB memo, a memo that the Washington Post found convincing:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_BrainExams.pdf

Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, noted that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex at the location of the alleged cowlick entry wound:

There is no entrance wound where the HSCA locates it. The autopsy photographs show intact cerebral cortex at the point that the HSCA claims is an entrance wound. This is confirmed by correct interpretation of the X-rays. (https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

Riley also noted that there is no connection between the high fragment trail and the cavitation wound, which is well below that trail, and that the cavitation wound is consistent with the EOP entry site:

The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. . . .

The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. . . .
         
There are clear signs of an entrance wound where it was described by the prosectors. (https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

Simply put, the autopsy materials show two separate, unconnected wound paths through JFK's head, one near the top of the skull (the high fragment trail) and the other several inches lower, proving beyond any doubt that two bullets hit the head. This is one of the reasons the autopsy doctors said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report or in their testimony. The other reason was that they knew there was no rear entry wound that corresponded with the high fragment trail.

It is obvious you have never read all the information you have posted.

Dr Mantik is using experimental data. Hardly a science.

Dr. Mantik: Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical], David Mantik and Doug Horne’s status within the so-called research community are of such a proportion that I find it necessary to note the numerous mistakes in their collected works

Dr. Mantik believes the X Ray photos are faked. All of his conclusions are based on what he believes are fake X Rays? Is that the science you are referring to?
------------------
Lets look back:
“The OP also discusses Dr. Fred Hodges' finding that the AP skull x-ray shows "a goodly portion" of the right brain to be missing, that Dr. Humes said that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away”
Sill interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as an example.  He does not confirm your EOP site nor cerebellum damage.

M Griffith:“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.”
Here is what Dr Hodges stated:

“"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. 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."
--------------
Occipital Region vs EOP

The occipital region refers to the area of the skull at the back of the head, encompassing the occipital bone and its associated structures. The EOP Site is a specific location within the occipital region, characterized by the external occipital protuberance, which is a bony projection on the external surface of the occipital bone. The EOP is significant for its role in the attachment of muscles and ligaments, as well as its potential clinical relevance in various medical fields. Not hardly the same reference point.
---------------
SA Kellerman? I guess he does have an S and an A before his name which in your mind would make him an expert. Why did the HSCA and the WC bother with all the doctors when they could have just relied on SA Kellerman?

[Michael T. Griffith]

It is obvious you have never read all the information you have posted.

Dr Mantik is using experimental data. Hardly a science.

Dr. Mantik: Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical], David Mantik and Doug Horne’s status within the so-called research community are of such a proportion that I find it necessary to note the numerous mistakes in their collected works

Dr. Mantik believes the X Ray photos are faked. All of his conclusions are based on what he believes are fake X Rays? Is that the science you are referring to?
------------------
Lets look back:
“The OP also discusses Dr. Fred Hodges' finding that the AP skull x-ray shows "a goodly portion" of the right brain to be missing, that Dr. Humes said that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away”
Sill interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as an example.  He does not confirm your EOP site nor cerebellum damage.

M Griffith:“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.”
Here is what Dr Hodges stated:

“"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. 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."
--------------
Occipital Region vs EOP

The occipital region refers to the area of the skull at the back of the head, encompassing the occipital bone and its associated structures. The EOP Site is a specific location within the occipital region, characterized by the external occipital protuberance, which is a bony projection on the external surface of the occipital bone. The EOP is significant for its role in the attachment of muscles and ligaments, as well as its potential clinical relevance in various medical fields. Not hardly the same reference point.
---------------
SA Kellerman? I guess he does have an S and an A before his name which in your mind would make him an expert. Why did the HSCA and the WC bother with all the doctors when they could have just relied on SA Kellerman?

Oh my goodness. So you're doubling down on your clownish claims and denials about the science of OD measurement. You keep ignoring the fact that we're talking about three sets of OD measurements: those done by Dr. Mantik (reviewed and approved by Dr. Arthur G. Haus and by Dr. Greg Henkelmann), those done by Dr. Chesser, and those done by Dr. DeSalles.

I notice you said nothing about the links I provided on the science of OD measurement.

I see you're also once again refusing to acknowledge the clear meaning of Hodges' statements. Do you just not understand what you're reading? Is that it?

Hodges said the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, and he referenced the autopsy report when he did so. The autopsy report says the entry wound was in the occiput, that it was slightly above and 2.5 to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). Yet, you keep pretending that Hodges rejected the autopsy report's location for the wound. You either don't understand what you're reading or you're trying to mislead readers.

Let's read again what Hodges said and see that he clearly referenced and endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound:

Although not readily detected on the x-rays, 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. The appearance is in keeping with the color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput. . . . (pp. 2-3)

What do you not understand here? Hodges was clearly, unmistakably discussing and endorsing the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry site. The debunked cowlick entry site is not even in any part of the occipital bone--it is supposedly in the parietal bone, about 1.7 above the lambda, a whopping 4 inches higher than where the autopsy doctors said it was. Go Google a basic skull diagram to understand the difference between a wound in the occipital bone and a wound in the parietal bone.

If the EOP site is correct, which it surely is, then the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

Again, you might read what your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, says about why the EOP site is correct and why the cowlick site is bogus (The JFK Myths, pp. 182-188).

I notice you said nothing about the two separate, unconnected wound paths through JFK's skull discussed by Dr. Joseph Riley, who was a neuroanatomist.