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?

[Michael T. Griffith]

This thread is Exhibit A for the refusal of lone-gunman theorists to deal credibly and objectively with evidence that destroys their version of the shooting. Any objective reader of this thread will see that WC apologists have no rational, believable answers to the compelling evidence that the brain photos simply cannot be pictures of JFK's brain.

Yet, lone-gunman theorists will continue to pretend that their case is valid, that the autopsy materials are pristine and reliable, and that there was no cover-up because there was only one gunman and only three shots, etc., etc. They will pretend that there is no evidence of fraud and alteration in the autopsy materials, that all of the contradictions and problems with those materials have been explained.

Most of their "explanations" boggle the mind. A few examples:

The nurses who cleaned JFK's large head wound and packed it with gauze, and the morticians at the autopsy who reassembled JFK's skull, could not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head that included part of the occiput and revealed severe damage to the cerebellum.

The Parkland doctors, including the chief neurosurgeon, somehow mistook parietal brain tissue for cerebellar brain tissue, even though the cerebellum looks very different from the rest of the brain.

A bullet that entered at the EOP site at a downward angle could have somehow, someway missed not only the cerebellum but the right occipital lobe.

Or, the autopsy doctors and the autopsy radiologist somehow, someway mistook an entry wound that was in the parietal bone, that was above the lambda and the lambdoid suture, at least 5 inches above the hairline and 4 inches above the EOP--they somehow, someway mistook this wound for a wound that was in the lower half of the occiput, only 1 cm above the EOP and 1 inch above the hairline.

The "large chunk of brain" that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER was reattached to the brain before the autopsy brain photos were taken! No, I'm not kidding. Jack Nessan made this argument.

The bits of JFK's brain that splattered or fell onto 16 surfaces amounted to less than 2 ounces of brain tissue.

Here's the core problem: If lone-gunman theorists admit that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent and that the skull x-rays show far more missing brain tissue than the brain photos show, their entire case collapses.



 

[Jack Nessan]

This thread is Exhibit A for the refusal of lone-gunman theorists to deal credibly and objectively with evidence that destroys their version of the shooting. Any objective reader of this thread will see that WC apologists have no rational, believable answers to the compelling evidence that the brain photos simply cannot be pictures of JFK's brain.

Yet, lone-gunman theorists will continue to pretend that their case is valid, that the autopsy materials are pristine and reliable, and that there was no cover-up because there was only one gunman and only three shots, etc., etc. They will pretend that there is no evidence of fraud and alteration in the autopsy materials, that all of the contradictions and problems with those materials have been explained.

Most of their "explanations" boggle the mind. A few examples:

The nurses who cleaned JFK's large head wound and packed it with gauze, and the morticians at the autopsy who reassembled JFK's skull, could not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head that included part of the occiput and revealed severe damage to the cerebellum.

The Parkland doctors, including the chief neurosurgeon, somehow mistook parietal brain tissue for cerebellar brain tissue, even though the cerebellum looks very different from the rest of the brain.

A bullet that entered at the EOP site at a downward angle could have somehow, someway missed not only the cerebellum but the right occipital lobe.

Or, the autopsy doctors and the autopsy radiologist somehow, someway mistook an entry wound that was in the parietal bone, that was above the lambda and the lambdoid suture, at least 5 inches above the hairline and 4 inches above the EOP--they somehow, someway mistook this wound for a wound that was in the lower half of the occiput, only 1 cm above the EOP and 1 inch above the hairline.

The "large chunk of brain" that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER was reattached to the brain before the autopsy brain photos were taken! No, I'm not kidding. Jack Nessan made this argument.

The bits of JFK's brain that splattered or fell onto 16 surfaces amounted to less than 2 ounces of brain tissue.

Here's the core problem: If lone-gunman theorists admit that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent and that the skull x-rays show far more missing brain tissue than the brain photos show, their entire case collapses.

You must have run out of the make-believe experts? Even your experts' statements do not support this tripe. The hospital nurses are now your new experts?

Unbelievable, now you are advocating the piece of JFK’s brain, that Jackie held in her hand was not somehow retained and preserved but instead just fed to the pups? What a delusional thing to post, but it seems in total character and explains the rest of this odd ranting narrative. The reason this odd story is so easily dismissed is because there is not a shred of proof or logic in any of it.

How about clue in. The bullet did so much damage that the skull was fractured into many pieces. You are unable to understand that the concussion of the bullet fragmenting, basically scrambled the brain. Are you really this lame?

Really, you think they would put the pieces of brain back into the skull to photograph them. You claim everything is faked except now this story of putting the brains back is part of your theory? This is how pathetic this really is. You cannot tell an honest story or make a viable case that his odd conspiracy theory even exists. It is all fantasy from start to finish. If there was even a morsel of truth in any part of this, you would not have to resort to tall tales, make believe experts, or to resort to absolute fiction to try and convince anyone of the validity of this brain damage nonsense. 

How about prove anything at all. Start there.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You must have run out of the make-believe experts? Even your experts' statements do not support this tripe. The hospital nurses are now your new experts?

A silly argument not worth answering. Objective people who read this thread will wonder how you can make such statements with a straight face.

Unbelievable, now you are advocating the piece of JFK’s brain, that Jackie held in her hand was not somehow retained and preserved but instead just fed to the pups? What a delusional thing to post, but it seems in total character and explains the rest of this odd ranting narrative. The reason this odd story is so easily dismissed is because there is not a shred of proof or logic in any of it.

Oh! Really?! Well, please do provide a shred of evidence that the large chunk of brain that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins was ever even flown to DC, much less that it was given to the autopsy doctors at any point. Nobody but nobody but nobody said one word about seeing any such thing. There is literally not one word in any account that even hints that such a thing was done.

FYI, the autopsy brain photos do not show any separate pieces of brain tissue. Dr. Jenkins said he gave the "large chunk of brain" to a Secret Service agent, and there is no record or even rumor of what happened to it after that, nor is there any photo of a "large chunk of brain," nor is there any record or account of a large piece of brain being given to the autopsy doctors at any point.

How about clue in. The bullet did so much damage that the skull was fractured into many pieces. You are unable to understand that the concussion of the bullet fragmenting, basically scrambled the brain. Are you really this lame?

Umm, which argument of mine is this ball of confusion supposed to be answering? How does this explain the fact that the skull x-rays show far more missing brain tissue than the autopsy brain photos show? How does this explain how JFK's brain could have weighed 1,500 grams after 16 bits of brain tissue from that brain splattered or fell onto 16 surfaces, not counting the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie brought to the ER? How does this explain the fact that the dozens of tiny fragments seen on the skull x-rays prove the ammo could not have been FMJ ammo?

Really, you think they would put the pieces of brain back into the skull to photograph them. You claim everything is faked except now this story of putting the brains back is part of your theory? This is how pathetic this really is. You cannot tell an honest story or make a viable case that his odd conspiracy theory even exists. It is all fantasy from start to finish. If there was even a morsel of truth in any part of this, you would not have to resort to tall tales, make believe experts, or to resort to absolute fiction to try and convince anyone of the validity of this brain damage nonsense.

Huh??? Uh, you're the one who claimed that someone took the large chunk of brain that Jackie brought to the ER and put it back with the rest of brain. I've never said that any pieces of brain tissue were put back with the rest of the brain. That was your zany suggestion.

The only fantasy is your claim that OD measurement is not a recognized science, that 40-plus witnesses couldn't tell the difference between a wound directly above the right ear and a wound several inches farther back on the head, that your college-dropout source (Pat Speer) knows more about OD science and x-ray interpretation than Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, Dr. Henkelmann, Dr. Haus, Dr. Aguilar, etc., etc.

How about prove anything at all. Start there.

I can't prove anything to you because you have the same mindset as a Flat Earther, a 9/11 Truther, or a Moon-landing denier when it comes to the JFK case.