Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[Zeon Mason]

So what about those Z film frames following Z313 that look like (to me at least ) that there’s a whole lot  of missing brain as the whole front part of JFKs head is gone.?

[Tom Graves]

So what about those Z film frames following Z313 that look like (to me at least ) that there’s a whole lot  of missing brain as the whole front part of JFKs head is gone.?

What would you like to know?

[Michael T. Griffith]

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...

Another surreal, Flat-Earther-like comment. Your answer to the hard scientific evidence of forgery in the autopsy materials resembles the zany denials we get from 9/11 Truthers and Flat Earthers when they are confronted with scientific evidence that refutes their theories. You and your fellow WC true believers are decades behind the information curve because your heads are buried in the sand when it comes to the new disclosures and new scientific findings that refute your theory.

Let's start with the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. For decades, every expert who reviewed the skull x-rays concluded it was a bullet fragment, but now even Pat Speer and Larry Sturdivan acknowledge that it cannot be a bullet fragment but must be some kind of "artifact." Speer and Sturdivan can't bring themselves to accept the fact that multiple OD measurements have proved the object is not metallic and the fact that Dr. Mantik has even duplicated how the object's image was placed on the AP x-ray, but they acknowledge that the object cannot be a bullet fragment.

Just look at your side's pitiful, grasping, strained attempts in this thread to explain the fact that the skull x-rays show far more missing brain than the brain photos show.

No, Jack Nessan, when Dr. Hodges said that "a goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing," his use of the word "apparently" does not mean he was guessing. When used in a medical-scientific context, "apparently" is the same as saying "this is what it shows" or "as observed" or "this is how it appears."

And only in a brainwashed lone-gunman theorist's mind could believe that "a goodly portion of the right brain" even remotely refers to less than 1-2 ounces of brain tissue. The term "goodly" is a common term with a known, long-established definition:

The Collins Dictionary:

"Goodly": A goodly amount or part of something is a fairly large amount or part of it, often more than was expected.

The Cambridge Dictionary:

"Goodly": GREATER THAN THE AVERAGE SIZE OR AMOUNT

Example: A goodly portion of the objects on show are real rarities.

Google AI overview defines "a goodly portion" as follows:

"A goodly portion" means a large, substantial amount or part of something, often more than average or expected. Usage examples include "a goodly portion of his time was spent volunteering" or "a goodly portion of the land is valuable property". Synonyms include substantial, considerable, large, and significant.

So when Dr. Hodges said the x-rays show "a goodly portion" of the right brain missing, he was saying the exact same thing as saying the x-rays show "a substantial portion" or "a large portion" or "a significant portion" of the right brain to be missing.

Gee, isn't it the most amazing coincidence that Dr. Humes said that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away, that OD measurements of the skull x-rays prove they show only about 30% of the right brain to be present, that the 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 1/3 to 2/3 of its tissue, and that we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces? Gee, how about that?!

Finally, it bears repeating that numerous experts have found evidence of alteration and forgery in the autopsy materials, including Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Doug DeSalles, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Robert Livingston, and RN Kathy Cunningham, among others, in addition to Dr. Mantik.

For a better understanding of the evidence of alteration and forgery in the autopsy photos and x-rays, I recommend Dr. Michael Chesser's presentation "The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of the Brain Photographs," given at South Texas College of Law in Houston in 2017. Dr. Chesser is a practicing, board-certified neurologist with decades of experience in the medical field. Here's a link to his presentation:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf

[Jack Nessan]

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.

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.

Dr Mantik said they were experimental.  When did experimental become hard science?
 
I notice you said nothing about the links I provided on the science of OD measurement.

Dr Mantik stated his work was just experimental and the photos were faked. Do you not grasp that. You read them first, that will make it easier to then help you understand what you have read. You seem to struggle with that.

I noticed you never stated that you read them. Like with Dr Hodges statement, you will just deny what is written in the links.

Have you read them?
 
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?

What Is understood is you obviously never read what he stated and it is not what you have been promoting.

How could he have been clearer. The damaged occipital region is not the cerebellum. 
 
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.
 

No. Remember, the original post came from the rebuttal to Pat Speer. Something you obviously never read but were telling everyone else to read.
 
Dr Hodges
"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.

No one but you are always talking about the cowlick site. Pretend all you want but Dr Hodges did not state what you wanted him to.
 
If the EOP site is correct, which it surely is, then the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.

No. They stated where the wound was located and what aspects of the brain were affected. You want the cerebellum to be where the bullet traveled, and according to your Dr Hodges it did not. Why trot Dr Hodges out as an expert and then trash what he stated?

Here is the location of the bullet’s path. “a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.” Where is the reference to the cerebellum? The cerebellum is below the occipital region. 

Where are the two shots from the front you have stated took place?

 
 

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

Dr Mantik said they were experimental.  When did experimental become hard science?
 
Dr Mantik stated his work was just experimental. Do you not grasp that.

The primary meaning of "experimental" in a scientific context is that it "refers to things that are derived from or based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone." You're using one of the secondary definitions of "experimental," i.e., tentative or provisional, but that is not how Dr. Mantik was using the term.

To further quote Google AI on the definitions of "experimental":

"Experimental" describes something that is new, based on a test or trial, or uses new methods to discover something new. It can also refer to something tentative, provisional, or done for the purpose of testing, such as an experimental drug, an experimental artist, or an experimental rule.

Given the apparently limited nature of your reading, even if you had read Dr. Mantik's research, I'm not sure you would have realized that he is not using the term "experimental" to mean tentative or provisional but is using it to refer to things (OD measurements) that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone."

Pat Speer made the same blunder. You got this blunder from his amateurish attack on Dr. Mantik's research. One would hope this would cause to you to rethink your reliance on a college dropout when it comes to medical-scientific issues that are far beyond his education and background.

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

I noticed you never stated that you read them. Like with Dr Hodges statement, you will just deny what is written in the links. Have you read them?

This sounds like juvenile posturing. Yes, I have read them. I've also read many other articles on the science of OD measurement. OD measurements are used in a variety of disciplines. Radiation oncologists use them to form some of their diagnoses. Microbiologists use OD measurements to estimate cell concentration and monitor growth by measuring how much light is scattered or absorbed by a suspension. Optics producers use OD measurements to design lenses and other optical instruments.
 

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?

What Is understood is you obviously never read what he stated and it is not what you have been promoting.

You must be kidding. Dr. Hodges referenced the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound and then said, in plain English, that the wound was in the right occiput. The autopsy report says the wound was 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP, which means it was in the right occiput.

How could he have been clearer. The damaged occipital region is not the cerebellum.

Again, as I told you in my previous reply, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage. He neither confirmed nor denied it. His main job was to provide an analysis of the skull x-rays, since he was the only radiologist on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel. He focused on the damage to the skull seen in the skull x-rays and supported his observations with occasional references to the autopsy photos.

You keep dancing around the fact that Dr. Hodges said (1) that the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of the right brain to be missing, and (2) that the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, just as the autopsy report says it was.

BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:

Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. (p. 3)

No bullet that entered the debunked cowlick site and exited above the right ear could have passed through the occiput. In fact, such a bullet would have gone nowhere near the occiput. You can Google a skull diagram to confirm this fact.
 

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.

No. Remember, the original post came from the rebuttal to Pat Speer. Something you obviously never read but were telling everyone else to read.

So you think I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer?! Yeah, okay. Surely you know better.

But, just for the sake of dealing with this silliness, let's assume I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer: How does this explain the fact that Dr. Hodges undeniably endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound?

Dr Hodges:

"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 cm 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.

No one but you are always talking about the cowlick site. Pretend all you want but Dr Hodges did not state what you wanted him to.

Uh, yes, he did. He said the wound was in the right occipital region, and he did so after specifically referencing the autopsy report's location for the wound, and he even noted that "many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site," i.e., the site described in the autopsy report.

And, yes, I'm talking about the cowlick site because that was the bogus site that was floated in order to avoid having to deal with the impossible trajectory of the EOP site. As early as the late 1960s, critics noted that any bullet striking the EOP site at a downward angle would have blown out a substantial part of the face, as confirmed by the WC's own wound ballistics tests. Critics also noted that the WC's own diagram showed that for the EOP-site trajectory to "work," JFK would have had to be leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck.
 

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

No. They stated where the wound was located and what aspects of the brain were affected. You want the cerebellum to be where the bullet traveled, and according to your Dr Hodges it did not. Why trot Dr Hodges out as an expert and then trash what he stated?

Again, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage. In fact, he said nothing about brain damage except to note that the x-rays show a large part of the right brain to be missing. He did not discuss which parts of the brain were damaged. His focus was on the damage to the skull as seen in the skull x-rays, since he was the only radiologist on the RC's medical panel.

Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.

I should add that a bullet hitting the EOP at a downward angle would have also torn through the right occipital lobe, but the brain photos show no damage to the right occipital lobe, as the HSCA FPP pointed out to the autopsy doctors to try to get them to repudiate the EOP site.

Here is the location of the bullet’s path. “a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.” Where is the reference to the cerebellum? The cerebellum is below the occipital region.

How many times are you going to repeat this strawman argument? Again, I never said Hodges mentioned damage to the cerebellum. You've just made this up to serve as a strawman because you can't explain how the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos can both be correct.

The HSCA FPP hammered the autopsy doctors with the argument that if the EOP site was correct, the autopsy brain photos would show substantial damage to the cerebellum, but the brain photos show no pre-mortem cerebellar damage--they don't even show any bleeding in the cerebellum. So either the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound is wrong or the  autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. It's that simple.

Where are the two shots from the front you have stated took place?

I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about the basics of the multiple-gunmen case.

[Jack Nessan]

The primary meaning of "experimental" in a scientific context is that it "refers to things that are derived from or based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone." You're using one of the secondary definitions of "experimental," i.e., tentative or provisional, but that is not how Dr. Mantik was using the term.

To further quote Google AI on the definitions of "experimental":

"Experimental" describes something that is new, based on a test or trial, or uses new methods to discover something new. It can also refer to something tentative, provisional, or done for the purpose of testing, such as an experimental drug, an experimental artist, or an experimental rule.

Given the apparently limited nature of your reading, even if you had read Dr. Mantik's research, I'm not sure you would have realized that he is not using the term "experimental" to mean tentative or provisional but is using it to refer to things (OD measurements) that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone."

Pat Speer made the same blunder. You got this blunder from his amateurish attack on Dr. Mantik's research. One would hope this would cause to you to rethink your reliance on a college dropout when it comes to medical-scientific issues that are far beyond his education and background.

This sounds like juvenile posturing. Yes, I have read them. I've also read many other articles on the science of OD measurement. OD measurements are used in a variety of disciplines. Radiation oncologists use them to form some of their diagnoses. Microbiologists use OD measurements to estimate cell concentration and monitor growth by measuring how much light is scattered or absorbed by a suspension. Optics producers use OD measurements to design lenses and other optical instruments.
 
You must be kidding. Dr. Hodges referenced the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound and then said, in plain English, that the wound was in the right occiput. The autopsy report says the wound was 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP, which means it was in the right occiput.

Again, as I told you in my previous reply, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage. He neither confirmed nor denied it. His main job was to provide an analysis of the skull x-rays, since he was the only radiologist on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel. He focused on the damage to the skull seen in the skull x-rays and supported his observations with occasional references to the autopsy photos.

You keep dancing around the fact that Dr. Hodges said (1) that the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of the right brain to be missing, and (2) that the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, just as the autopsy report says it was.

BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:

Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. (p. 3)

No bullet that entered the debunked cowlick site and exited above the right ear could have passed through the occiput. In fact, such as bullet would have gone nowhere near the occiput. You can Google a skull diagram to confirm this fact.
 
So you think I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer?! Yeah, okay. Surely you know better.

But, just for the sake of dealing with this silliness, let's assume I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer: How does this explain the fact that Dr. Hodges undeniably endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound?

Uh, yes, he did. He said the wound was in the right occipital region, and he did so after specifically referencing the autopsy report's location for the wound, and he even noted that "many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site," i.e., the site described in the autopsy report.

And, yes, I'm talking about the cowlick site because that was the bogus site that was floated in order to avoid having to deal with the impossible trajectory of the EOP site. As early as the late 1960s, critics noted that any bullet striking the EOP site at a downward angle would have blown out a substantial part of the face, as confirmed by the WC's own wound ballistics tests. Critics also noted that the WC's own diagram showed that for the EOP-site trajectory to "work," JFK would have had to be leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck.
 
Again, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage. In fact, he said nothing about brain damage except to note that the x-rays show a large part of the right brain to be missing. He did not discuss which parts of the brain were damaged. His focus was on the damage to the skull as seen in the skull x-rays, since he was the only radiologist on the RC's medical panel.

Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.

I should add that a bullet hitting the EOP at a downward angle would have also torn through the right occipital lobe, but the brain photos show no damage to the right occipital lobe, as the HSCA FPP pointed out to the autopsy doctors to try to get them to repudiate the EOP site.

How many times are you going to repeat this strawman argument? Again, I never said Hodges mentioned damage to the cerebellum. You've just made this up to serve as a strawman because you can't explain how the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos can both be correct.

The HSCA FPP hammered the autopsy doctors with the argument that if the EOP site was correct, the autopsy brain photos would show substantial damage to the cerebellum, but the brain photos show no pre-mortem cerebellar damage--they don't even show any bleeding in the cerebellum. So either the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound is wrong or the  autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. It's that simple.

I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about the basics of the multiple-gunmen case.

It can also refer to something tentative, provisional, or done for the purpose of testing

"Something tenative, provisional" is not a description of a solid scientific principle.

Now you get it. Not definitive. Where is the science?

How about do not refer to it as a science again based on what you just posted.

-------

Given the apparently limited nature of your reading, even if you had read Dr. Mantik's research, I'm not sure you would have realized that he is not using the term "experimental" to mean tentative or provisional but is using it to refer to things (OD measurements) that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone."

Nobody is in need of your childlike understanding of the word "experimental".

Dr Mantik claimed the X Ray Photos were faked based on it. He was wrong. Who else thought he was right but you.

---------

BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:
Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. (p. 3)

Dr Hodges: “and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region”

Dr Hodges' statement of the bullets path is a long way from your claim of “torn through the cerebellum”

M Griffith “which means the bullet would have torn through the cerebellum.”

-------------------

So you think I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer?! Yeah, okay. Surely you know better.
 
I do not think you read the rebuttal at all. You assume what they are all about. It is the only explanation for you missing so much of what was written. Why do I have to explain to you what Dr Hodges stated if you had read the link, let alone all the other things in the rebuttal that have seemed to have gone right over your head.

-------------

Again, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage.   

According to your quote he did. You aren't able to understand what he stated? Then you wonder why I don't think you read your own links?

Because the bullets path was above it.

-----------------------

Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.

Nobody is ducking anything. What a load of crap. You admit it did not travel through the cerebellum. So, what is it you are prattling on about?

-----------------

How many times are you going to repeat this strawman argument?

Until you clue in.

------------------------

So either the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound is wrong or the  autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. It's that simple.
 
No. This statement is based solely on your opinion, nothing more.

-------------------

I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about the basics of the multiple-gunmen case.

How about educating me on the evidence of a third shot. To date you have not proven there even was a third shot, let alone now claiming two more shots from the front; that would be considered absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Notice that lone-gunman theorists are saying nothing about the fact that bits of JFK’s brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain tissue that Jackie handed to a doctor in the Parkland emergency room.

Vincent Bugliosi was so pathologically committed to the lone-gunman theory that he did not realize the devastating, fatal nature of Dr. Baden’s admission that the brain in the autopsy brain photos is missing “less than” 1-2 ounces of its substance.

Bugliosi was so blinded by his bias that he forgot that elsewhere in his book he mentioned that Jackie Kennedy was holding “a large chunk” of JFK’s brain when she entered the Parkland Hospital emergency room and gave it to Dr. Marion T. (“Pepper”) Jenkins:

Looking shell-shocked, Mrs. Kennedy aimlessly circles the hospital gurney where technicians work feverishly on her husband’s body. Her hands are cupped in front of her, as if cradling something. As she passes Dr. Jenkins, she nudges him with her elbow and hands him what she has been nursing—a large chunk of brain tissue. Jenkins quickly gives it to a nearby nurse. (Reclaiming History, p. 182)

Dr. Jenkins himself confirmed that Jackie Kennedy handed him “a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues”:

Jacqueline Kennedy was circling the room, walking behind my back. The Secret Service could not keep her out of the room. She looked shell-shocked. As she circled and circled, I noticed that her hands were cupped in front of her, as if she were cradling something. As she passed by, she nudged me with an elbow and handed me what she had been nursing in her hands: a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues. I quickly handed it to a nurse. (Dennis Breo, “JFK’s Death, Part II,” Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, p. 2806, https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md221.pdf)

Obviously, this “large chunk” of brain tissue could not have come from the brain shown in the autopsy brain photos.

And keep in mind that bits of brain tissue from JFK’s brain also ended up on 16 surfaces, including Officer Martin’s clothes, Officer Hargis’s clothes, the follow-up car’s windshield, SS agent Kinney’s coat (he was riding in the follow-up car), the limo’s rear passenger door, the limo’s front seat, the limo’s back seat, and the drapes of JFK’s emergency room cart (in his 11/22 written statement, Dr. Jenkins said he saw “fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart”).

Is anyone going to argue that all of this splattered/dripped brain tissue and the “large chunk” of brain tissue that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins—that all of this brain tissue amounted to "less than" 1-2 ounces?

Bugliosi either was not aware of all the brain tissue that splattered or dripped from JFK’s brain, including the “large chunk” of brain tissue that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins, or he simply forgot about this damning fact in his eagerness to trumpet Baden’s statement that “less than” 1-2 ounces of brain tissue are missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos.

[Jack Nessan]

Notice that lone-gunman theorists are saying nothing about the fact that bits of JFK’s brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain tissue that Jackie handed to a doctor in the Parkland emergency room.

Vincent Bugliosi was so pathologically committed to the lone-gunman theory that he did not realize the devastating, fatal nature of Dr. Baden’s admission that the brain in the autopsy brain photos is missing “less than” 1-2 ounces of its substance.

Bugliosi was so blinded by his bias that he forgot that elsewhere in his book he mentioned that Jackie Kennedy was holding “a large chunk” of JFK’s brain when she entered the Parkland Hospital emergency room and gave it to Dr. Marion T. (“Pepper”) Jenkins:

Looking shell-shocked, Mrs. Kennedy aimlessly circles the hospital gurney where technicians work feverishly on her husband’s body. Her hands are cupped in front of her, as if cradling something. As she passes Dr. Jenkins, she nudges him with her elbow and hands him what she has been nursing—a large chunk of brain tissue. Jenkins quickly gives it to a nearby nurse. (Reclaiming History, p. 182)

Dr. Jenkins himself confirmed that Jackie Kennedy handed him “a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues”:

Jacqueline Kennedy was circling the room, walking behind my back. The Secret Service could not keep her out of the room. She looked shell-shocked. As she circled and circled, I noticed that her hands were cupped in front of her, as if she were cradling something. As she passed by, she nudged me with an elbow and handed me what she had been nursing in her hands: a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues. I quickly handed it to a nurse. (Dennis Breo, “JFK’s Death, Part II,” Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, p. 2806, https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md221.pdf)

Obviously, this “large chunk” of brain tissue could not have come from the brain shown in the autopsy brain photos.

And keep in mind that bits of brain tissue from JFK’s brain also ended up on 16 surfaces, including Officer Martin’s clothes, Officer Hargis’s clothes, the follow-up car’s windshield, SS agent Kinney’s coat (he was riding in the follow-up car), the limo’s rear passenger door, the limo’s front seat, the limo’s back seat, and the drapes of JFK’s emergency room cart (in his 11/22 written statement, Dr. Jenkins said he saw “fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart”).

Is anyone going to argue that all of this splattered/dripped brain tissue and the “large chunk” of brain tissue that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins—that all of this brain tissue amounted to "less than" 1-2 ounces?

Bugliosi either was not aware of all the brain tissue that splattered or dripped from JFK’s brain, including the “large chunk” of brain tissue that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins, or he simply forgot about this damning fact in his eagerness to trumpet Baden’s statement that “less than” 1-2 ounces of brain tissue are missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos.

-----------------

This would be a great time to show case Dr Mantik's OD measurements. Dr Mantik can use OD Measurements on the brain matter and blood cloud above JFK from the headshot in the Zapruder Film. Isn’t it your claim that it is science and works no matter what is taking place.

What brain matter was held in Jackie's hand was not part of what was blown up into the air and would have been placed back with the rest, would it not have? Dr Mantik would undoubtedly have known this, and it could be figured into his calculations because it is a science or claimed to be one.

I doubt you have read this, it is from Dr Mantik’s reply to Pat Speer’s critique, but this is where Dr Mantik went off the rails on the X Rays having been faked. Again, where is the science in this? There is no crime in not knowing something but reaching conclusions that are proven wrong then casts doubt on other aspects of the conclusions.

“The correction of my mistake came from Arthur G. Haus and colleagues at Kodak, who advised me about image crossovers (from one side of the film to the other) in these 1960s X-rays, a technical problem that was later solved. (Initially, I had only known about modern X-ray films, where the image cannot effectively cross over from one side to the other.) The presence of such crossover in these JFK X-rays, though, re-opened the door to photographic alteration in the darkroom”

Faked X Rays instead of just admit he was mistaken.