Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[Michael T. Griffith]

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?

Your comment is either a display or raw ignorance or naked dissembling. Let's read what Dr. Mantik says again on this point, and notice that he specifically contrasts "experimental" with "theoretical" regarding the OD data:

As if wearing blinders, Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical. ("Speer Critique," p. 12, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-autopsy-x-rays-david-mantik-vs-pat-speer)

Do you really not have the intelligence and education to see that Dr. Mantik is using the primary scientific definition of "experimental" and is referring to things that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone"? Really? Are you seriously that uneducated and confused?

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

How about you stop displaying such raw ignorance and stop comically denying that we're talking about hard scientific evidence from an established, recognized science? Let's read again what a real medical expert, board-certified radiation oncologist Dr. Greg Henkelmann, says about Dr. Mantik's OD measurements:

Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)

Compare this to your comical claims that "No one but Mantik believes OD has any validity" and that "OD is not a science."

If you'd like to verify Dr. Henkelmann's credentials, here are some links about him:

https://health.usnews.com/doctors/gregory-henkelmann-562388

https://maryhttps://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.htmlorg/blog/3-factors-you-should-consider-when-choosing-cancer-care-providers/

https://www.womans.org/findadoctor/gregory-c-henkelmann

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."

You're the one using the grade-school definition of "experimental" and who keeps denying that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You have revealed yourself to be little more than an uneducated troll and a fringe lone-gunman theorist whose zany version of the shooting is rejected even by most of your fellow lone-gunman theorists.

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

Who else thinks he's right? Here's a partial list:

-- Dr. Greg Henkelmann, radiation oncologist.
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles, MD.
-- Dr. Michael Chesser, neurologist.
-- Dr. Arthur Haus, former chief of medical science at Kodak.
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, board-certified ophthalmologist and one of the few doctors given permission to view the autopsy materials at the National Archives
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht, forensic pathologist and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
-- Dr. Robert Livingston, Nobel Prize-winning scientist, a former director of two NIH institutes, a former scientific director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the first-ever department of neuroscience at UCSD.
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw, former chief of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.
-- Dr. John Costella, a professor of physics at the University of Melbourne, and the author of four articles on physics published in the American Journal of Physics.

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.”

LOL! I mean, this is just hilarious. You are either aberrantly dissembling or are proving you lack the education and capacity to understand what you're reading.

Let's cut through your evasions and blunderings by having you answer one simple question: How could a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window have entered 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP without tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe?

Before you humiliate and embarrass yourself even further, I'll do you a favor and remind you that the HSCA's forensic experts went to great lengths to point out that if the EOP entry site was correct, the bullet could not possibly have avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. This was the main argument they used to try to get the autopsy doctors to repudiate the EOP site. See especially the lengthy exchange between Dr. Finck and FPP member Dr. Loquvam.

Again, this is so simple: If a bullet fired from the sniper's nest hit the skull at the EOP site, that bullet could not have avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. Ah, but here's the problem for you guys: the autopsy brain photos show no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. 

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.

This is not only juvenile and hilarious, but a little weird. You clearly either have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer or you lack the capacity to understand it.

You keep making the odd complaint that "Mantik’s whole response to Speer was an attempt to vindicate his use of OD as a tool." Umm, well, yes, Dr. Mantik spends a lot of time in his rebuttal on his OD measurements, because he's answering Speer's bogus, amateurish claims about his OD measurements. Dr. Mantik also spends a lot of time in his rebuttal dealing with Speer's blundering claims about the skull x-rays, the impossible white patch, and the 6.5 mm object.

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.

Uh-huh. More abject comedy. You've "explained" nothing to me about what Dr. Hodges said. I've been the one doing all the explaining, because you can't seem to grasp, or don't want to acknowledge, Dr. Hodges' plain-English statements regarding the rear head entry point and the amount of missing brain.

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?

Huh? Just Huh? Is English your second language? Nothing in the quotes from Dr. Hodges' report says, or even implies, that he mentioned or addressed cerebellar damage. If you would bother to read his report, you would see that he said nothing about any damage to the cerebellum.

This whole discussion is just ridiculous. You keep dancing around the core issues by going off on irrelevant tangents and pretending you can't understand plain English.

Then you wonder why I don't think you read your own links?

The only thing I wonder is how anyone could get on a public forum and make the kinds of bizarre, vacuous statements you are making.

Because the bullets path was above it [the cerebellum].

Oh my goodness. You have no business even talking about this stuff. No, the bullet's path was not above the cerebellum. Even the autopsy doctors did not deny that an EOP-site bullet would have had to tear through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. You haven't even read the autopsy doctors' HSCA testimony or the HSCA FPP's report, have you?

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 just now ducked again. You just now, once again, ducked the fact that a 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.

You admit it did not travel through the cerebellum.

So English really is your second language, or perhaps your third? How in the world could you interpret my statements as an admission that the bullet "did not travel through the cerebellum"? How? Are you actually that incapable of grasping plain English and basic logic? 

One of my key points is that the brain photos are obviously fraudulent because they show no damage to the cerebellum, that since the EOP site is correct the brain photos cannot show JFK's brain because they show an intact cerebellum.

But you keep ducking and dodging this point by refusing to explain how the brain photos could be of JFK's brain when they show a brain that's missing less than 1-2 ounces of its tissue and that has no damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.

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

Until you clue in.

I have clued in, but you are clueless (or else you don't mind embarrassing yourself by pretending not to understand plain English). It is funny that you really don't seem to grasp how badly you are discrediting yourself with this nonsense.

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.

Umm, no, the HSCA FPP's main argument against the EOP site was that it could not be correct because the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.

It is impressive and revealing that in spite of having this argument pressed against them repeatedly by eight of the nine forensic pathologists on the FPP, Finck and Boswell refused to repudiate the EOP site and insisted it was correct, and that Humes only repudiated the EOP site with great reluctance at the very end (and then retracted his repudiation and again argued for the EOP site when interviewed by JAMA in 1992).

I can't wait to see what strained, hilarious arguments you're going to make to try to explain the fact that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces and that Jackie handed Dr. Jenkins "a large chunk" of JFKs brain tissue in the Parkland ER.

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.

How about educating you "on the evidence of a third shot"?! Well, your fellow lone-gunman theorists have already done that, but you've refused to acknowledge the evidence. You continue to cling to your ludicrous fringe theory that only two shots were fired during the assassination.

But, hey, you can take comfort in the fact that your zany theory has been endorsed by a disgraced dirty cop who admitted on tape that he had planted evidence to frame minorities, who boasted on tape about police brutality against blacks, and who was convicted of perjury, Mark Fuhrman. Congratulations!

[Tommy Shanks]

Who else thinks he's right? Here's a partial list:

-- Dr. Greg Henkelmann, radiation oncologist.
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles, MD.
-- Dr. Michael Chesser, neurologist.
-- Dr. Arthur Haus, former chief of medical science at Kodak.
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, board-certified ophthalmologist and one of the few doctors given permission to view the autopsy materials at the National Archives
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht, forensic pathologist and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
-- Dr. Robert Livingston, Nobel Prize-winning scientist, a former director of two NIH institutes, a former scientific director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the first-ever department of neuroscience at UCSD.
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw, former chief of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.
-- Dr. John Costella, a professor of physics at the University of Melbourne, and the author of four articles on physics published in the American Journal of Physics.

Just when I think Michael T. Griffith can't make me laugh any harder, he trots out John Costella to bolster David Mantik's ridiculous fake x-ray claims. Yes, the same John Costella who said he and Jack White were being followed and monitored while visiting Dealey Plaza. The same monitors that turned out to be sprinklers. These are the "experts" on whom Griffith relies.

Separately, please produce a source backing up your statement that Dr. Cyril Wecht believes the JFK autopsy x-rays are fake.

[Jack Nessan]

Your comment is either a display or raw ignorance or naked dissembling. Let's read what Dr. Mantik says again on this point, and notice that he specifically contrasts "experimental" with "theoretical" regarding the OD data:

As if wearing blinders, Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical. ("Speer Critique," p. 12, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-autopsy-x-rays-david-mantik-vs-pat-speer)

Do you really not have the intelligence and education to see that Dr. Mantik is using the primary scientific definition of "experimental" and is referring to things that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone"? Really? Are you seriously that uneducated and confused?

How about you stop displaying such raw ignorance and stop comically denying that we're talking about hard scientific evidence from an established, recognized science? Let's read again what a real medical expert, board-certified radiation oncologist Dr. Greg Henkelmann, says about Dr. Mantik's OD measurements:

Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)

Compare this to your comical claims that "No one but Mantik believes OD has any validity" and that "OD is not a science."

If you'd like to verify Dr. Henkelmann's credentials, here are some links about him:

https://health.usnews.com/doctors/gregory-henkelmann-562388

https://maryhttps://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.htmlorg/blog/3-factors-you-should-consider-when-choosing-cancer-care-providers/

https://www.womans.org/findadoctor/gregory-c-henkelmann

You're the one using the grade-school definition of "experimental" and who keeps denying that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You have revealed yourself to be little more than an uneducated troll and a fringe lone-gunman theorist whose zany version of the shooting is rejected even by most of your fellow lone-gunman theorists.

Who else thinks he's right? Here's a partial list:

-- Dr. Greg Henkelmann, radiation oncologist.
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles, MD.
-- Dr. Michael Chesser, neurologist.
-- Dr. Arthur Haus, former chief of medical science at Kodak.
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, board-certified ophthalmologist and one of the few doctors given permission to view the autopsy materials at the National Archives
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht, forensic pathologist and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
-- Dr. Robert Livingston, Nobel Prize-winning scientist, a former director of two NIH institutes, a former scientific director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the first-ever department of neuroscience at UCSD.
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw, former chief of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.
-- Dr. John Costella, a professor of physics at the University of Melbourne, and the author of four articles on physics published in the American Journal of Physics.

LOL! I mean, this is just hilarious. You are either aberrantly dissembling or are proving you lack the education and capacity to understand what you're reading.

Let's cut through your evasions and blunderings by having you answer one simple question: How could a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window have entered 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP without tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe?

Before you humiliate and embarrass yourself even further, I'll do you a favor and remind you that the HSCA's forensic experts went to great lengths to point out that if the EOP entry site was correct, the bullet could not possibly have avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. This was the main argument they used to try to get the autopsy doctors to repudiate the EOP site. See especially the lengthy exchange between Dr. Finck and FPP member Dr. Loquvam.

Again, this is so simple: If a bullet fired from the sniper's nest hit the skull at the EOP site, that bullet could not have avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. Ah, but here's the problem for you guys: the autopsy brain photos show no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. 

This is not only juvenile and hilarious, but a little weird. You clearly either have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer or you lack the capacity to understand it.

You keep making the odd complaint that "Mantik’s whole response to Speer was an attempt to vindicate his use of OD as a tool." Umm, well, yes, Dr. Mantik spends a lot of time in his rebuttal on his OD measurements, because he's answering Speer's bogus, amateurish claims about his OD measurements. Dr. Mantik also spends a lot of time in his rebuttal dealing with Speer's blundering claims about the skull x-rays, the impossible white patch, and the 6.5 mm object.

Uh-huh. More abject comedy. You've "explained" nothing to me about what Dr. Hodges said. I've been the one doing all the explaining, because you can't seem to grasp, or don't want to acknowledge, Dr. Hodges' plain-English statements regarding the rear head entry point and the amount of missing brain.

Huh? Just Huh? Is English your second language? Nothing in the quotes from Dr. Hodges' report says, or even implies, that he mentioned or addressed cerebellar damage. If you would bother to read his report, you would see that he said nothing about any damage to the cerebellum.

This whole discussion is just ridiculous. You keep dancing around the core issues by going off on irrelevant tangents and pretending you can't understand plain English.

The only thing I wonder is how anyone could get on a public forum and make the kinds of bizarre, vacuous statements you are making.

Oh my goodness. You have no business even talking about this stuff. No, the bullet's path was not above the cerebellum. Even the autopsy doctors did not deny that an EOP-site bullet would have had to tear through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. You haven't even read the autopsy doctors' HSCA testimony or the HSCA FPP's report, have you?

You just now ducked again. You just now, once again, ducked the fact that a 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.

So English really is your second language, or perhaps your third? How in the world could you interpret my statements as an admission that the bullet "did not travel through the cerebellum"? How? Are you actually that incapable of grasping plain English and basic logic? 

One of my key points is that the brain photos are obviously fraudulent because they show no damage to the cerebellum, that since the EOP site is correct the brain photos cannot show JFK's brain because they show an intact cerebellum.

But you keep ducking and dodging this point by refusing to explain how the brain photos could be of JFK's brain when they show a brain that's missing less than 1-2 ounces of its tissue and that has no damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.

I have clued in, but you are clueless (or else you don't mind embarrassing yourself by pretending not to understand plain English). It is funny that you really don't seem to grasp how badly you are discrediting yourself with this nonsense.

Umm, no, the HSCA FPP's main argument against the EOP site was that it could not be correct because the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.

It is impressive and revealing that in spite of having this argument pressed against them repeatedly by eight of the nine forensic pathologists on the FPP, Finck and Boswell refused to repudiate the EOP site and insisted it was correct, and that Humes only repudiated the EOP site with great reluctance at the very end (and then retracted his repudiation and again argued for the EOP site when interviewed by JAMA in 1992).

I can't wait to see what strained, hilarious arguments you're going to make to try to explain the fact that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces and that Jackie handed Dr. Jenkins "a large chunk" of JFKs brain tissue in the Parkland ER.

How about educating you "on the evidence of a third shot"?! Well, your fellow lone-gunman theorists have already done that, but you've refused to acknowledge the evidence. You continue to cling to your ludicrous fringe theory that only two shots were fired during the assassination.

But, hey, you can take comfort in the fact that your zany theory has been endorsed by a disgraced dirty cop who admitted on tape that he had planted evidence to frame minorities, who boasted on tape about police brutality against blacks, and who was convicted of perjury, Mark Fuhrman. Congratulations!

What exactly is your point in this high pitched squeal? It has already been proven by your own expert that this whole story is nonsense. Dr Hodges clearly states the bullet entered the back of JFK’s head, tore through his brain and exited the side of his head. What truly is the point of this whole exercise? Regurgitating the same unproven nonsense is pointless. You seem to be fixated on the level of damage as proof of something. What exactly, please in ten words or less, is it proof of?

What makes this so strange is JFK really was shot in the head from behind as confirmed by your leading expert Dr Hodges. How in any way does making this ridiculous claim alter that fact. 

There is nothing new in this entire post that has not been answered in previous replies by your experts. Only you seem to think it is a confusing issue. Let's go over it one more time. The bullet struck JFK in the back of the head, proceeded through his brain after fragmenting, and exited the side the right of his head. Where is the confusion?

The Xray and brain photos are authentic; you have not cast any doubt on that fact all. They have been deemed authentic by your experts.

M Griffith:

“How does this explain the fact that Dr. Hodges undeniably endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound?”

MGiffith:

“Only a drawing of one of the autopsy brain photos has been released, but several experts have been allowed to view all the brain photos at the National Archives. Baden got to view them at length as part of the HSCA FPP's review of the medical evidence. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have also seen all the brain photos. They have confirmed Baden's statement that the brain photos show only a very small amount of missing brain tissue, no more than 2 ounces.”

Hodges refuted the findings of the Clark Panel, noting instead that

 "a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site." 

"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."

---------------------------------
Dr hodges stated the bullet went through the occipit. The cerebellum lies below the occipit. Maybe you have different brain diagrams.

MGriffith:

“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, your expert stated right occipital region vs your cerebellum, which lies below it.

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

M Griffith:

“How does this explain the fact that Dr. Hodges undeniably endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound?”

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

No answer?

This would be a great time to show case 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.

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?

“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”

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

If you can prove there were more than two shots, especially after admitting LHO could have only fired two shots, then get after it. To date you have not proven there even was a third shot. Until you do it, it is really hard to place any relevance of any kind on any of these rants. These theories you have presented really should begin with a disclaimer as to their accuracy.

Pat Speer was dead on: Just “blowing smoke”:

Even in the Zapruder film it can be clearly viewed that this is absolutely wrong. Do you really need an expert to look at photos and see the damage?

“4. Dr. Mantik, one of the heroes of the alteration crowd, says the x-rays are deceptive and that they actually DO show the back of the head to be missing. Does that change your impression at all? Or do you agree with the likes of...well, me...that he is blowing smoke?”

First, at a rather early stage in my OD work, after I had (wrongly) decided that the OD data were inconsistent with composite X-rays (in a widely, but privately, circulated paper, titled “2 + 2 = 4”), I had followed the data where (I thought) they led and stated that the X-rays must be authentic. Speer apparently does not know this history. 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

[Michael T. Griffith]

Of course, another severe problem with the undamaged cerebellum seen in the autopsy brain photos is that several of the Dallas doctors, including a neurosurgeon, said the cerebellum was damaged and protruding and oozing/dripping from the right-rear exit wound.

Keep in mind, too, that cerebellar tissue is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue because it has a very different appearance, and the cerebellum is located directly behind the lower half of the occipital bone.

Dr. Kemp Clark, Parkland Hospital's chief neurosurgeon, examined JFK's head and reported that the large head wound exposed the cerebellum and that damaged cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound because the wound included part of the occiput. From his WC testimony:

I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. (6 H 20)

From Dr. Clark's 11/22/63 summary report:

Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . .
         
There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . .  There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

Yet, the autopsy brain photos show the cerebellum undamaged and entirely intact and connected with the surrounding brain regions, and don't even show any pre-mortem bleeding of the cerebellum, as HSCA FPP member Dr. George Loquvam pointed out to Dr. Finck.

Dr. Clark's report of damaged cerebellar tissue exposed by a large wound in the right-rear part of the skull is supported by several other medical witnesses. For example, Dr. Robert McClelland noted the large right-rear wound and said some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out:

I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. (6 H 34)

Dr. Malcolm Perry:

I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal-occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue. (3 H 372)

The brain tissue behind the occiput consists of the cerebellum and the right and left occipital lobes, but the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and the occipital lobes.

Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:

There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392)

Dr. Charles Carrico:

. . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. (6 H 3)

The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipito-parietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. . . . There was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura. (6 H 6)

In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said,

The other wound was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound. (7 HSCA 268)

But, again, in the autopsy brain photos, the cerebellum is undamaged and intact, is not the least bit dislodged from the rest of the brain, and does not even show any pre-mortem bleeding. The HSCA FPP members (except for Dr. Wecht) repeatedly pointed this out to the autopsy doctors to try to get them to repudiate the EOP site.

I should add that John T. Stringer, the autopsy photographer, when asked what he recalled about the cerebellum before looking at the brain photos, said the cerebellum was "damaged, lacerated, cut" (Deposition of John Stringer, ARRB, 7/16/96, pp. 225-226).

Finally, as many here know, the existence of the large right-rear head wound, i.e., the large right occipital-parietal head wound, was confirmed by the Parkland nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze to prepare the body for the casket, by Secret Service agent Clint Hill in his first report on the shooting and in later statements, and by numerous witnesses at the autopsy, including the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy.

[Jack Nessan]

Of course, another severe problem with the undamaged cerebellum seen in the autopsy brain photos is that several of the Dallas doctors, including a neurosurgeon, said the cerebellum was damaged and protruding and oozing/dripping from the right-rear exit wound.

Keep in mind, too, that cerebellar tissue is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue because it has a very different appearance, and the cerebellum is located directly behind the lower half of the occipital bone.

Dr. Kemp Clark, Parkland Hospital's chief neurosurgeon, examined JFK's head and reported that the large head wound exposed the cerebellum and that damaged cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound because the wound included part of the occiput. From his WC testimony:

I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. (6 H 20)

From Dr. Clark's 11/22/63 summary report:

Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . .
         
There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . .  There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

Yet, the autopsy brain photos show the cerebellum undamaged and entirely intact and connected with the surrounding brain regions, and don't even show any pre-mortem bleeding of the cerebellum, as HSCA FPP member Dr. George Loquvam pointed out to Dr. Finck.

Dr. Clark's report of damaged cerebellar tissue exposed by a large wound in the right-rear part of the skull is supported by several other medical witnesses. For example, Dr. Robert McClelland noted the large right-rear wound and said some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out:

I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. (6 H 34)

Dr. Malcolm Perry:

I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal-occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue. (3 H 372)

The brain tissue behind the occiput consists of the cerebellum and the right and left occipital lobes, but the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and the occipital lobes.

Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:

There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392)

Dr. Charles Carrico:

. . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)

There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. (6 H 3)

The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipito-parietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. . . . There was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura. (6 H 6)

In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said,

The other wound was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound. (7 HSCA 268)

But, again, in the autopsy brain photos, the cerebellum is undamaged and intact, is not the least bit dislodged from the rest of the brain, and does not even show any pre-mortem bleeding. The HSCA FPP members (except for Dr. Wecht) repeatedly pointed this out to the autopsy doctors to try to get them to repudiate the EOP site.

I should add that John T. Stringer, the autopsy photographer, when asked what he recalled about the cerebellum before looking at the brain photos, said the cerebellum was "damaged, lacerated, cut" (Deposition of John Stringer, ARRB, 7/16/96, pp. 225-226).

Finally, as many here know, the existence of the large right-rear head wound, i.e., the large right occipital-parietal head wound, was confirmed by the Parkland nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze to prepare the body for the casket, by Secret Service agent Clint Hill in his first report on the shooting and in later statements, and by numerous witnesses at the autopsy, including the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy.

Cerebral is a reference to the brain as a whole brain, not just the cerebellum. You understand that right?

It appears Dr Hodges is no longer the expert doctor on the damage to the brain? Probably because he does not state what you want. Hodges does not support your belief that a bullet passed through the cerebellum.

You want the cerebellum to be where the bullet traveled, and according to your expert, Dr Hodges, it did not. First you trot Dr Hodges out as an expert, and now you are no longer supporting what he stated?

Maybe in your rush to try and prove this bullet passing through the cerebellum nonsense, you did not notice none of these doctors quoted in this post describe a bullet passing through the cerebellum. That is just your imagination working overtime.

Everyone of these doctors describe a wound that enters the back of the head, fragments or explodes in the brain, and exits above the right ear. Where is the conspiracy in this post?

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

The damage to the brain being described by you is a result of the bullet fragmenting and exiting the side of the skull not a bullet passing through the brain. Just like the doctors state.

Pat Speer:

4. The damage to the underside of the brain, which was described by Humes and others, even Chesser, is not shown in the drawing published by the HSCA, which is a view from above. No view of the underside has ever been made available

MGiffith:

“Only a drawing of one of the autopsy brain photos has been released, but several experts have been allowed to view all the brain photos at the National Archives. Baden got to view them at length as part of the HSCA FPP's review of the medical evidence. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have also seen all the brain photos. They have confirmed Baden's statement that the brain photos show only a very small amount of missing brain tissue, no more than 2 ounces.”

MGriffith:

“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.”

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

MGiffith:

“Only a drawing of one of the autopsy brain photos has been released, but several experts have been allowed to view all the brain photos at the National Archives. Baden got to view them at length as part of the HSCA FPP's review of the medical evidence. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have also seen all the brain photos. They have confirmed Baden's statement that the brain photos show only a very small amount of missing brain tissue, no more than 2 ounces.”

Herniated indicates that the brain protruded out, not the bullet passed through it.

Dr. JENKINS - ........ I was aware of the magnitude of the wound, because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay.

“The damage to the underside of the brain, which was described by Humes and others, even Chesser[/[/u]b], is not shown in the drawing published by the HSCA,”

They stated “underside”of the brain---Not a bullet passing through it.

Nowhere are they supporting your statements of a bullet passing through the cerebellum. They state they see it, but that in no way indicates the bullet hit it.

-----------

These statements are just wrong. The bullet proceeded on a diagonal but straight through the skull back to front, because JFK’s head was tilted down.

M Griffith:

“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.”

“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.”

Mr. SPECTER - The physicians, surgeons who examined the President at the autopsy specifically, Commander James J. Humes, H-u-m-e-s (spelling); Commander J. Thornton Boswell, B-o-s-w-e-l-l (spelling), and Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, F-i-n-c-k (spelling), expressed the Joint opinion that the wound which I have just described as being 15 by 6 mm. and 2.5 cm. to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberant was a point of entrance of a bullet in the President's head at a time when the President's head was moved slightly forward with his chin dropping into his chest, when he was riding in an open car at a slightly downhill position. With those facts being supplied to them in a hypothetical fashion, they concluded that the bullet would have taken a more or less straight course, exiting from the center of the President's skull at a point indicated by an opening from three portions of the skull reconstructed, which had been brought to them---would those findings and those conclusions be consistent with your observations if you assumed the additional facts which I have brought to your attention, in addition to those which you have personally observed?
Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir.
 

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

So you're straining and dodging right out of the gate. Speaking of the explosion of brain and blood seen in the Zapruder film, are you seriously suggesting that the brain matter blown out of the head in Z313-316 amounted to no more than 2 ounces?

Again, bits of JFK's brain ended up on 16 surfaces, a fact that you continue to ignore. Most of the pieces were blown out, while a few of them fell out at the hospital, such as the pieces that dripped onto the cart in the ER--and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain that Jackie brought into the ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins.

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?

LOL! Say what?! Where in the autopsy brain photos do you see a separate "large chunk" of brain tissue? Yikes! 

Brain tissue is not like clay. You can't just take a large piece of brain tissue that has been blown out of the brain and press it against the rest of the brain to reattach it. You understand that, right? Right? Yes?

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.

What? Huh? Just how ridiculous can you get? The large chunk of brain that Jackie handed it to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER was not in the skull when the x-rays were made.

It almost sounds like you're claiming that Dr. Humes somehow obtained the large chunk of brain before taking the skull x-rays, then pushed the large chunk back into the skull, and then took the skull x-rays! You're not stooping to that depth of absurdity, are you?

If so, I'll just say that it is mighty strange that there is no record of a large chunk of brain being brought to the autopsy, much less that Dr. Humes received a large chunk of brain at the start of the autopsy and then pushed it back into the skull before the skull x-rays were taken!

You see, the problem is that you just can't bring yourself to face the fact that far more brain tissue was blown out of JFK's brain than is missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos, and that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, which is vastly more brain tissue than is missing from the brain in the autopsy brain photos. 

We haven't even talked about the impossible brain weight recorded by the autopsy doctors: 1,500 grams. The average male brain weighs about 1,350 grams. After the shooting, JFK's brain could not have weighed more than 900 grams.

And I see you still can't even muster up enough objectivity and credibility to at least admit that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You're like a Flat Earther who can't bring himself to admit that satellite imagery is not a recognized, established science. Here are more sources on the fact that OD measurement is an established science:

https://www.cet-science.com/products/testing-methods/biological-analysis/optical-density-measurement-od600/
EXCERPT: Optical density measurement (OD or OD600) is used in microbiology to estimate the concentration of bacteria or other cells in a liquid.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/optical-density
EXCERPT: Optical density (OD) is defined as a measure based on the linear relationship between light absorbance and particle concentration, commonly used for its speed and cost-effectiveness in monitoring biological samples. It is often applied at specific wavelengths to minimize background noise, particularly in bacterial cultures and microalgae measurements. . . . Optical density is measured by an instrument known as a densitometer, which incorporates a small light source, generally 1–2 mm in diameter, and a light detector.

FYI, Dr. Mantik, who recently retired from his career as a radiation oncologist, used a densitometer when he did his OD measurements on the JFK skull x-rays.

Google AI overview: Radiation oncologists use optical density measurement, often by scanning specially prepared films or dosimeters, to quantify and verify radiation dose distributions in treatment planning and delivery. The optical density of a scanned film is converted into a digital map of the radiation dose, allowing for the precise verification of the treatment plan. This process helps ensure the prescribed dose is accurately delivered to the tumor while minimizing harm to surrounding healthy tissues.

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.

Oh my goodness. You have once again completely misunderstood Dr. Mantik's point. I'm trying to fathom how you could so totally misread what Dr. Mantik is saying. Let me try to explain it to you in the simplest terms possible:

Dr. Mantik initially believed the skull x-rays had to be authentic because their images appeared on both emulsions, on both sides of the film. At the time, he believed that the x-ray film used in the 1960s would have prevented a great deal of light from crossing over from one side of the film to the other, and that therefore the film would not allow enough crossover light to produce an image on the other side of the film, i.e., on both emulsions. Thus, he concluded the skull x-rays had not been altered because he believed that an altered image could not have been copied onto double-emulsion film. But, he later learned from two experts at Kodak, including Dr. Haus, that this was not the case.

Here is Dr. Mantik's explanation on this issue in his first article on his OD measurements of the skull x-rays:

Standard X-ray film, on the other hand, has an emulsion on both sides---and so did these autopsy X-ray films! This surprising observation put me off the scent for a while. I was not familiar with double-sided emulsions being used for making copies. If these films had had images on just one side, I might still have been able to argue that they were copies.

But then I noticed that the image appeared on both emulsions! I could conclude this because the emulsion had peeled off in several places so that I could see one emulsion at a time. Actually, I used the background grid lines on the film for this purpose, which was just as good. There were about 2.3 lines per millimeter, and with my glasses off I could see these well. I also used a high-power microscope to confirm that the image occurred on both sides; because the depth of field was so shallow, I could focus on one side at a time. This observation made me think that the films had to be originals. . . .

From my training in radiation oncology, I had remembered that not too much light crosses over from one emulsion to the other in an x-ray film. Such crossover is considered undesirable because it tends to fuzz out the image. Then one day I phoned the experts at Kodak. Two of them got on the line, including Arthur G. Haus, Director of Medical Physics, and we a had a round table discussion. (I later had the pleasure of meeting Haus at one of my specialty meetings in Los Angeles; he also graciously reviewed this article for me.)

In the course of that conversation, they stunned me. They said that for film in the 1960s, a great deal of light could cross over from one side to the other--sometimes even enough to produce a nearly equal image on both sides, even though it was exposed to light from only one side!

So there, at last, was the explanation. In the early 1960s, nothing special had to be done to copy a superior image onto a double-emulsion film. Furthermore, the image would be nearly equal (and of good quality) on both emulsions, just as I had seen on the autopsy films. That was because the 1960s films were not as good as our present ones--crossover is more limited nowadays. (See Arthur G. Haus, 1995, Characteristics of Screen-Film Combinations for Conventional Medical Radiography, Eastman Kodak Publication No. N-319.) (Assassination Science, pp. 133-135)