Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[Tommy Shanks]

Michael T. Griffith has become the Jim Hargrove of this forum -- endlessly writing the same thousands of words over and over about subjects nobody ever asked to debate with him, while ignoring any actual evidence that deflates his "all the evidence is faked" garbage.

[Michael T. Griffith]

As stated earlier, if you believe the autopsy photos of the brain are genuine, you must reject the EOP site as the location of the rear head entry wound; but, if you accept the EOP site, you must reject the brain photos. Why? Because the brain photos show no damage or bleeding to the cerebellum, not even in the immediate area behind the EOP entry site, and no damage to the rear portion of the right and left occipital lobes.

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) stressed the fact that the brain photos do not show the damage to the cerebellum and the occipital lobes that would have occurred if a bullet had entered at the EOP site:

The panel notes that the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum is virtually intact. It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report. There is no damage in the area of the brain corresponding to the piece of brain tissue on the hair which the autopsy pathologists told the panel was the entrance wound. (7 HSCA 129)

After saying that the photos of the brain support the FPP's higher placement of the rear head entry wound (i.e., the now-debunked cowlick site), the FPP report says that panel member Dr. Earl Rose wanted to emphasize, on behalf of the majority of the panel, that the lack of injury on the inferior (lower) part of the brain is "incontrovertible" evidence that the location of the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report is wrong:
         
One panel member, Dr. Rose, wishes to emphasize the view of the majority of the panel (all except Dr. Wecht) that the absence of injury on the inferior surface the brain offers incontrovertible evidence that the wound in the President's head is not in the location described in the autopsy report. (7 H 115)

Another member of the FPP, Dr. Charles Petty, noted the virtually pristine condition of the cerebellum and pointed out to Humes and Boswell that the brain photos also show no damage to the rear part of the occipital lobes:

Dr. PETTY. Well we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain and if this wound were way low we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes, and this has concerned us right down the line as to where precisely the inshoot wound was, and this is why we found ourselves in a quandary and one of the reasons that we very much wanted to have you come down today. (7 HSCA 259)

The conflict between the brain photos and the EOP site was highlighted when Dr. Pierre Finck was interviewed by the FPP, especially when he was questioned by FPP member Dr. George Loquvam. The transcript of the interview was supposed to remain sealed for 50 years, but it was released in the 1990s by the ARRB.

Dr. Loquvam made the logical point that if a bullet entered at the EOP site, the photos of the brain would show substantial damage to the cerebellum, but that they show no such damage. Dr. Loquvam noted that he saw no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum, not even any bleeding (hemorrhaging/hemorrhage).

In his first response to Loquvam’s crucial point, Finck floated the strange argument that a bullet could have entered at the EOP site without damaging brain tissue and without even causing any hemorrhaging/hemorrhage (bleeding). Loquvam was incredulous at this response and asked, “You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?” Finck could not explain this contradiction and replied that he could not answer the question. Let us read the exchange:
         
Dr. Loquvam. If a missile had entered at this point, would it have entered the posterior cranial vault and produced subarachnoid hemorrhage in the cerebellar hemisphere?

I have pointed to color picture No. 43 at the point of entrance that Dr. Finck is saying the entrance is and I am referring to the four color photographs of the brain in which I see no subarachnoid hemorrhage other than postmortem.

My question is, if this is the point of entrance, isn't that at the level of the posterior cranial vault where the cerebellar hemispheres lie and would we not see subarachnoid hemorrhage if a slug had torn through there?

Dr. Finck. Not necessarily because you have wounds without subarachnoid hemorrhage.
         
Dr. Loquvam. You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?

Dr. Finck. I don't know. I cannot answer your question. (HSCA Medical Panel Meeting transcript, March 11, 1978, p. 97)

The problem for the lone-gunman theory is that the EOP site is surely correct. Finck and Boswell never caved to the FPP's pressure to repudiate the EOP site but doggedly insisted it was correct. Humes doggedly defended the EOP site until almost the very end, until just before he was to be questioned by HSCA deputy chief counsel Gary Cornwell in a public hearing and was warned by an FPP member (probably Dr. Petty or Dr. Spitz) that Cornwell would treat him as a hostile witness if he did not repudiate the EOP site. When Humes was interviewed by JAMA in 1992, however, he reversed himself and said the EOP site was correct. In addition, Humes, Boswell, and Finck all told the ARRB that the EOP site was correct.

As I've discussed in earlier replies, subsequent research has validated the EOP site and debunked the cowlick site.

[Michael T. Griffith]

As stated earlier, if you believe the autopsy photos of the brain are genuine, you must reject the EOP site as the location of the rear head entry wound; but, if you accept the EOP site, you must reject the brain photos. Why? Because the brain photos show no damage or bleeding to the cerebellum, not even in the immediate area behind the EOP entry site, and no damage to the rear portion of the right and left occipital lobes.

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) stressed the fact that the brain photos do not show the damage to the cerebellum and the occipital lobes that would have occurred if a bullet had entered at the EOP site:

The panel notes that the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum is virtually intact. It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report. There is no damage in the area of the brain corresponding to the piece of brain tissue on the hair which the autopsy pathologists told the panel was the entrance wound. (7 HSCA 129)

After saying that the photos of the brain support the FPP's higher placement of the rear head entry wound (i.e., the now-debunked cowlick site), the FPP report says that panel member Dr. Earl Rose wanted to emphasize, on behalf of the majority of the panel, that the lack of injury on the inferior (lower) part of the brain is "incontrovertible" evidence that the location of the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report is wrong:
         
One panel member, Dr. Rose, wishes to emphasize the view of the majority of the panel (all except Dr. Wecht) that the absence of injury on the inferior surface the brain offers incontrovertible evidence that the wound in the President's head is not in the location described in the autopsy report. (7 H 115)

Another member of the FPP, Dr. Charles Petty, noted the virtually pristine condition of the cerebellum and pointed out to Humes and Boswell that the brain photos also show no damage to the rear part of the occipital lobes:

Dr. PETTY. Well we have some interesting information in the form of the photographs of the brain and if this wound were way low we would wonder at the intact nature not only on the cerebellum but also on the posterior aspects of the occipital lobes, such as are shown in Figure 21. Here the cerebellum is intact as well as the occipital lobes, and this has concerned us right down the line as to where precisely the inshoot wound was, and this is why we found ourselves in a quandary and one of the reasons that we very much wanted to have you come down today. (7 HSCA 259)

The conflict between the brain photos and the EOP site was highlighted when Dr. Pierre Finck was interviewed by the FPP, especially when he was questioned by FPP member Dr. George Loquvam. The transcript of the interview was supposed to remain sealed for 50 years, but it was released in the 1990s by the ARRB.

Dr. Loquvam made the logical point that if a bullet entered at the EOP site, the photos of the brain would show substantial damage to the cerebellum, but that they show no such damage. Dr. Loquvam noted that he saw no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum, not even any bleeding (hemorrhaging/hemorrhage).

In his first response to Loquvam’s crucial point, Finck floated the strange argument that a bullet could have entered at the EOP site without damaging brain tissue and without even causing any hemorrhaging/hemorrhage (bleeding). Loquvam was incredulous at this response and asked, “You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?” Finck could not explain this contradiction and replied that he could not answer the question. Let us read the exchange:
         
Dr. Loquvam. If a missile had entered at this point, would it have entered the posterior cranial vault and produced subarachnoid hemorrhage in the cerebellar hemisphere?

I have pointed to color picture No. 43 at the point of entrance that Dr. Finck is saying the entrance is and I am referring to the four color photographs of the brain in which I see no subarachnoid hemorrhage other than postmortem.

My question is, if this is the point of entrance, isn't that at the level of the posterior cranial vault where the cerebellar hemispheres lie and would we not see subarachnoid hemorrhage if a slug had torn through there?

Dr. Finck. Not necessarily because you have wounds without subarachnoid hemorrhage.
         
Dr. Loquvam. You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?

Dr. Finck. I don't know. I cannot answer your question. (HSCA Medical Panel Meeting transcript, March 11, 1978, p. 97)

The problem for the lone-gunman theory is that the EOP site is surely correct. Finck and Boswell never caved to the FPP's pressure to repudiate the EOP site but doggedly insisted it was correct. Humes doggedly defended the EOP site until almost the very end, until just before he was to be questioned by HSCA deputy chief counsel Gary Cornwell in a public hearing and was warned by an FPP member (probably Dr. Petty or Dr. Spitz) that Cornwell would treat him as a hostile witness if he did not repudiate the EOP site. When Humes was interviewed by JAMA in 1992, however, he reversed himself and said the EOP site was correct. In addition, Humes, Boswell, and Finck all told the ARRB that the EOP site was correct.

As I've discussed in earlier replies, subsequent research has validated the EOP site and debunked the cowlick site.

Bumping this reply to highlight the fact that if the EOP site is correct, the brain in the autopsy brain photos cannot be JFK's brain. The HSCA FPP assumed the brain photos were determinative and unquestionable and made the corollary argument that the brain photos proved the EOP site could not be correct, while ignoring all the evidence for the EOP site and ignoring all the problems with the cowlick site.

Notice that not one of the negative replies herein offers a rational, believable explanation for how the brain photos could be of JFK's brain when we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto 16 surfaces, not counting the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie brought to the Parkland ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins.

Notice that not one of the negative replies explains the fact that the skull x-rays show far more missing brain than the "less than 1 to 2 ounces" of brain tissue missing from the brain in the autopsy brain photos.

And notice that the negative replies that address the eyewitness accounts of a large amount of missing brain and of extensive damage to the cerebellum can only offer the lame argument that every single one of those accounts is "mistaken," even though they are supported by the skull x-rays, by OD measurements of the skull x-rays, by the bits of brain that ended up on 16 surfaces, by the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie brought to the Parkland ER, by wound diagrams drawn by autopsy witnesses showing a large right-rear head wound, and by dozens of accounts of a large right-rear head wound given by eyewitnesses who got good looks at the wound, including the three morticians at the autopsy and the Parkland nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze.

[Jack Nessan]

Bumping this reply to highlight the fact that if the EOP site is correct, the brain in the autopsy brain photos cannot be JFK's brain. The HSCA FPP assumed the brain photos were determinative and unquestionable and made the corollary argument that the brain photos proved the EOP site could not be correct, while ignoring all the evidence for the EOP site and ignoring all the problems with the cowlick site.

Notice that not one of the negative replies herein offers a rational, believable explanation for how the brain photos could be of JFK's brain when we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto 16 surfaces, not counting the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie brought to the Parkland ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins.

Notice that not one of the negative replies explains the fact that the skull x-rays show far more missing brain than the "less than 1 to 2 ounces" of brain tissue missing from the brain in the autopsy brain photos.

And notice that the negative replies that address the eyewitness accounts of a large amount of missing brain and of extensive damage to the cerebellum can only offer the lame argument that every single one of those accounts is "mistaken," even though they are supported by the skull x-rays, by OD measurements of the skull x-rays, by the bits of brain that ended up on 16 surfaces, by the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie brought to the Parkland ER, by wound diagrams drawn by autopsy witnesses showing a large right-rear head wound, and by dozens of accounts of a large right-rear head wound given by eyewitnesses who got good looks at the wound, including the three morticians at the autopsy and the Parkland nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze.

MTG "And notice that the negative replies that address the eyewitness accounts of a large amount of missing brain and of extensive damage to the cerebellum can only offer the lame argument that every single one of those accounts is "mistaken," even though they are supported by the skull x-rays, by OD measurements of the skull x-rays, by the bits of brain that ended up on 16 surfaces, by the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie brought to the Parkland ER, by wound diagrams drawn by autopsy witnesses showing a large right-rear head wound, and by dozens of accounts of a large right-rear head wound given by eyewitnesses who got good looks at the wound, including the three morticians at the autopsy and the Parkland nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze."

Do you ever stop contradicting yourself? One-minute massive brain loss, the next minute the brain is undamaged.

Dr Joseph Riley: In the "top of head" autopsy photographs, intact cerebral cortex is visible. (This has been confirmed in personal communications from Dr. Robert Artwohl and Dr. David Mantik, both of whom visited the archives.

Are you having trouble discerning which one is true or just hedging your bet?