Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[John Corbett]

Welcome to the MTG Amateur Hour.

[Lance Payette]

I think some follow-up is in order. A key part of the single-shooter story advanced by the majority of lone-gunman theorists is that the autopsy doctors--Humes, Boswell, and Finck--somehow, someway made the mind-boggling "mistake" of confusing a wound in the cowlick for a wound nearly 4 inches lower near the EOP.

Even a first-year pathology student would never make such an unbelievable, impossible "mistake," especially when they had the obvious, fixed anatomical feature of the EOP as a reference point, not to mention the hairline and the lambdoid suture.

Positing such an astounding "mistake" is as absurd as suggesting that three doctors mistook a wound next to the right eye for a wound just to the left of the mouth. No jury, no judge, nobody would buy such a claim. They would all say, "Nobody could make that kind of a mistake. Something else is going on here."

It should further be noted that nearly all lone-gunman theorists also ask us to believe that all three autopsy doctors, including Finck, somehow confused the obvious high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays with a trail that started at least 2 inches lower and on the opposite end of the skull. The high fragment trail includes a cloud of numerous fragments in the right-frontal region, and from there it dissipates upward and does not reach the phantom cowlick entry site. Just try to fathom how anyone could make such a stupendous blunder when looking at the lateral skull x-ray.

For those who may not be aware, the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. It has vanished. The only fragment trail now seen on the skull x-rays is the high fragment trail. Furthermore, and equally incredibly, the autopsy report says nothing, not one word, about the high fragment trail--the only fragment trail it describes starts near the EOP and trails upward. Again, no such low fragment trail is  now seen on the skull x-rays.

Another point that needs to be made is that lone-gunman theorists have almost completely ignored the important findings of the ARRB's three forensic experts, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, Dr. Doug Ubelaker, and Dr. Robert Kirschner.

The ARRB forensic experts noted the following:

* The AP skull x-ray shows substantial frontal bone missing. (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker)

Forensic experts Dr. G.M. McDonnel and Dr. Lawrence Angel told the HSCA the same thing, but Dr. Michael Baden, the chairman of the HSCA's medical panel (FPP), ignored their findings and falsely claimed in the FPP's report that the x-rays show the frontal bone to be intact.

How does one square a substantial amount of missing frontal bone with the autopsy photos that show JFK's forehead intact? Dr. Ubelaker noted this contradiction, as I note below. Of course, Baden was surely aware of this problem, which is why he falsely claimed in the FPP's report that the x-rays show the frontal bone to be intact.

* The amount of missing frontal bone in the AP skull x-ray is inconsistent with the appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos. (Dr. Ubelaker)

As mentioned, Dr. McDonnel and Dr. Angel likewise noted that the skull x-rays show a sizable amount of missing frontal bone, a fact that Baden ignored. Baden only asked McDonnel and Angel to study the x-rays, so McDonnel and Angel did not realize that the autopsy photos show no indication of any significant frontal-bone damage. But, of course, Baden knew this, yet this didn't stop him from ensuring that the FPP's report falsely claimed that the x-rays show the frontal bone intact.

* On the AP x-ray, the orbit of the right eye appears to be “cracked and displaced.” (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker)

Of course, no such damage appears in the autopsy photos that show the face. Dr. Kirschner went even further regarding right-orbit damage, saying that “the rear of the right orbit was observed to be missing.” Yet, the autopsy photos that show the face show no damage to JFK's right eye.

If the autopsy photos were pristine, they would show the right eye sunken or at least displaced/distorted, since the x-rays show the right orbit to be "cracked and displaced" and show the rear of the right orbit to be missing.

* No part of the lambdoid suture is visible on the lateral skull x-rays. (Dr. Ubelaker)

This is critical information. The lambdoid suture is the fibrous connective tissue joint that joins the parietal bones to the occipital bone. It is located only in the back of the head. Dr. Mantik notes that the absence of the right part of the lambdoid suture clearly requires that occipital bone and rear parietal bone are missing. Dr. Mantik notes that part of the right lambdoid suture is also missing on the AP x-ray.

* There is no fragment in the back of the skull on the lateral skull x-rays that corresponds to the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Kirschner)

As some will realize, this is monumental. It confirms the optical-density (OD) measurements and magnified viewing of the 6.5 mm object done by three medical doctors with expertise in radiology, including Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser. We now know that a forger ghosted the image of the 6.5 mm object onto the AP x-ray sometime before the Clark Panel reviewed the autopsy materials. Dr. Mantik has been able to duplicate how it was done.

* The damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, i.e., a shot from the front. (Dr. Ubelaker)

* The Clark Panel/HSCA cowlick entry wound does not appear on the skull x-rays. There is no radiographic evidence of a wound in that location. (Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Kirschner)

Yet, the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP both claimed that the skull x-rays show the cowlick entry site. Either they were looking at different skull x-rays, or they all blundered, or they all falsely claimed to see an entry wound where there was none.

This leaves the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report as the only viable rear-head entry site, but the EOP site presents impossible trajectory problems for the lone-gunman theory. There is no way that the alleged lone gunman could have fired that shot, unless we assume JFK was leaning forward by well over 50 degrees when the shot hit his head. This was one of the reasons the people doing the cover-up decided to move the entry wound up by a whopping 4 inches, from the EOP up to the cowlick. The Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP obediently rubber-stamped the cowlick entry site.

Two of the HSCA FPP's radiology consultants did raise questions about the cowlick site, but Baden ignored them.

For example, Dr. David O. Davis, one of the HSCA's radiology consultants and the chairman of the Department of Radiology at George Washington University Hospital at the time, noted that the high fragment trail is 6 cm above and in front of the 6.5 mm object, that the trail extends "anteriorly [toward the front] from the inner table of the skull at a point approximately 6-cm. antero-superiorly [in front of and above] from the previously described embedded metallic fragment.” In plain English, this means the high fragment trail does not connect with the proposed cowlick entry site but starts 5 cm above the site, since the 6.5 mm object is 1 cm below the site.

IOW, the high fragment trail not only does not connect with the phantom cowlick entry site but it starts 1.9 inches (5 cm) above the site. Baden had to know that these facts raised all sorts of doubts about the cowlick site, but he simply ignored them. Dr. Gary Aguilar, who has studied the autopsy materials at the National Archives, notes the problems for the cowlick entry site posed by the skull x-rays:

That fragment trail does not line up with the presumed higher entrance hole. As one of the authors (Aguilar) determined by looking at the original X-rays, the trail lies noticeably higher than that level. . . .

Therefore, the trail of fragments is 5 cm higher than the “above-mentioned hole” [the cowlick entry site]. And so, if extended posteriorly, the fragment trail does not pass through the “above-mentioned hole,” but 5 cm above it. (Dr. Gary Aguilar and RN Kathy Cunningham, ”How Five Investigations Into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong: III. The Clark Panel,” History Matters website, May 2003, https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_3.htm. 

* The photos of the back of the head support the EOP entry site, not the cowlick site. (Dr. Ubelaker)

Dr. Ubelaker was “surprised that the HSCA had determined the red spot in the back of the head photos was the entry wound on President Kennedy’s head.” He added,

The red spot in the upper part of the photo near the end of the ruler does not really look like a wound. The red spot looks like a spot of blood--it could be a wound but probably isn't. The white spot which is much lower in the picture near the hairline could be a flesh wound and is much more likely to be a flesh wound than the red spot higher in the photograph.

Interestingly, this is exactly what the three autopsy doctors said when several of the HSCA medical panel members tried to pressure them to repudiate the EOP site and endorse the cowlick entry site.

In addition, John Stringer, the chief photographer at the autopsy, told the ARRB that he saw an entrance wound right next to the EOP, near the hairline, where the autopsy doctors said it was (Deposition of John Stringer, ARRB, 7/16/96, pp. 81-82). He also said that the supposed image of an entry wound in the cowlick was not the entrance wound he saw on the night of the autopsy. Indeed, Stringer denied the photo showed a bullet wound in the higher location (Ibid., pp. 193-195, 212).

BTW, Stringer also insisted to the ARRB that the extant autopsy brain photos were not the photos he took. He said they showed the wrong view and were made with a different kind of film than the film he used (Ibid., pp. 153-154).

Some people here may not be aware that in his 2005 book The JFK Myths, Larry Sturdivan, a former HSCA wound ballistics consultant, rejects the cowlick entry site and argues that the rear entry wound was where the autopsy doctors said it was: about 4 inches below the cowlick site and slightly above the EOP (pp. 165-180).

* Autopsy photo F8 shows fatty tissue in the upper-left corner. (Dr. Kirschner)

This is crucial because F8 could not show that fatty tissue unless it had been taken from the back of the head. We now know that the autopsy doctors, the autopsy radiologist, and the medical photographer who took the picture said it was a back-of-head photo. This, in turn, is crucial because it means this photo shows a large wound in the occiput.

* Some of the dark areas on the skull x-rays are unusually dark, much darker than the dark areas on normal x-rays. (Dr. Ubelaker)

Dr. Mantik had made this same observation a few years earlier, unknown to Dr. Ubelaker. When the ARRB interviewed Dr. Humes and asked him to review the skull x-rays, Humes was troubled by the large dark area in the right-frontal region.

Although I'm disappointed MTG didn't manage to work Julius Caesar or the 1933 Business Plot into this thread, the discrepancy between the autopsy doctors' location of the head wound and the HSCA's placement is absolutely astonishing, is it not? Surely we would go with the autopsy doctors, would we not? I'm mean, good grief, they weren't bumbling high school biology students dissecting a frog.

If MTG could ratchet down his conspiracy-prone mindset by about 90%, some of his contributions would be worthwhile. As it is, he epitomizes what Reagan said about liberals: "The problem with MTG is not that he's ignorant about the JFKA, it's that he knows so much that isn't so."

[Michael T. Griffith]

Welcome to the MTG Amateur Hour.

No, welcome to the John Corbett and Lance Payette Dissembling and Evasion Hour.

Was Dr. David O. Davis an amateur? Was Dr. Lawrence Angel an amateur? Was Dr. Fred Hodges an amateur? Was Dr. Doug Ubelaker an amateur? Was Dr. John Fitzpatrick an amateur? Was Dr. Robert Kirschner an amateur? Was Dr. Vincent DiMaio an amateur? Was Dr. Forrest Chapman an amateur? All of these experts presented findings that invalidate your version of the shooting, but you ignore this fact and continue to dishonestly pretend that I am merely giving my own opinions.

Where is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? Why doesn't it appear on the extant JFK autopsy skull x-rays? Why didn't the autopsy doctors say anything about the high fragment trail that is so obvious on the extant skull x-rays? Did they just "miss" it?! I notice you keep declining to address this issue.

Are you ever going to take a stab at explaining how the three autopsy pathologists, plus the radiologist and the chief medical photographer at the autopsy, could have "mistaken" a wound in the cowlick, i.e., a wound that was above the lambda and the lambdoid suture, for a wound that was a whopping 10 cm (3.93 inches) lower and only 1 cm above the EOP? Hey? I notice you keep declining to address this issue.

Are you ever going to venture a guess as to how a bullet that struck at the Clark Panel-HSCA FPP entry site could have created a fragment trail that started 5 cm above the site and at least 2 cm to the right of the site? How does that work? Top it off, how could this same bullet, supposedly an FMJ bullet, have deposited a large fragment, two smaller fragments, and several tiny fragments 1 cm below the alleged entry site? Huh? How does that work? Tell us. Let's hear it. I notice you keep declining to address this issue.

And on and on we could go. The plain fact of the matter is that you and Lance Payette have no clue how to explain any of these facts. Instead of admitting this, you keep falsely pretending that I'm doing nothing but voicing my own opinions, and Payette keeps hiding behind his juvenile talking point that all conspiracy theorists have warped minds and thus can't deal logically with evidence.

[John Corbett]

No, welcome to the John Corbett and Lance Payette Dissembling and Evasion Hour.

Was Dr. David O. Davis an amateur? Was Dr. Lawrence Angel an amateur? Was Dr. Fred Hodges an amateur? Was Dr. Doug Ubelaker an amateur? Was Dr. John Fitzpatrick an amateur? Was Dr. Robert Kirschner an amateur? Was Dr. Vincent DiMaio an amateur? Was Dr. Forrest Chapman an amateur? All of these experts presented findings that invalidate your version of the shooting, but you ignore this fact and continue to dishonestly pretend that I am merely giving my own opinions.

Dr. Vincent Di Maio is not your friend. He believes JFK was shot in the back of the head and that there was not a second missile that struck his head.

Dr. E. Forrest Chapman is a forensic pathologist but you have cited his opinions of CE543 in a field in which he is not a professional.

Why do you cite the opinions of experts outside their field of expertise?

Where is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? Why doesn't it appear on the extant JFK autopsy skull x-rays? Why didn't the autopsy doctors say anything about the high fragment trail that is so obvious on the extant skull x-rays? Did they just "miss" it?! I notice you keep declining to address this issue.

I defer to the unanimous opinion of the FPP which is the medical evidence indicates JFK was shot in the back of the head. I'm not silly enough to think I can offer a more compelling opinion base on the few low grade photos and x-rays that have been leaked to the public. You, on the other hand, seem to have no qualms about doing that.

Are you ever going to take a stab at explaining how the three autopsy pathologists, plus the radiologist and the chief medical photographer at the autopsy, could have "mistaken" a wound in the cowlick, i.e., a wound that was above the lambda and the lambdoid suture, for a wound that was a whopping 10 cm (3.93 inches) lower and only 1 cm above the EOP? Hey? I notice you keep declining to address this issue.

I can take a stab at it based on the limited amount of autopsy evidence I have seen and given that I am no expert in forensic pathology. Once the bullet tore through JFK's skull, his head ceased to be a solid object. It was a collection of bone fragments held together by flaps of scalp. I can certainly understand how pathologists inexperienced in forensic medicine could mislocate the point of entry. One of Dr. Cyril Wecht's objections to their work is that they didn't take their measurements from standard points of reference.

Are you ever going to venture a guess as to how a bullet that struck at the Clark Panel-HSCA FPP entry site could have created a fragment trail that started 5 cm above the site and at least 2 cm to the right of the site? How does that work? Top it off, how could this same bullet, supposedly an FMJ bullet, have deposited a large fragment, two smaller fragments, and several tiny fragments 1 cm below the alleged entry site? Huh? How does that work? Tell us. Let's hear it. I notice you keep declining to address this issue.

A guess is all I can offer. It's all you can offer also. Neither of us has any expertise in the field of forensic pathology. Only one of us thinks his guess is more credible than the unanimous opinion of the FPP.

And on and on we could go. The plain fact of the matter is that you and Lance Payette have no clue how to explain any of these facts.

Neither do you but that doesn't stop you from pontificating as if you have expertise in these various fields.

Instead of admitting this, you keep falsely pretending that I'm doing nothing but voicing my own opinions, and Payette keeps hiding behind his juvenile talking point that all conspiracy theorists have warped minds and thus can't deal logically with evidence.

I don't agree with Lance a lot [pun intended] but I do agree CTs aren't very good at dealing logically with the evidence. They don't try to explain the evidence. They make up excuses to explain the evidence away. That's why they are never able to present any actual evidence that anybody but Oswald took part in the assassination. The best they can do is attack the findings of the WC with their amateurish opinions in fields which require a high level of expertise which they don't possess.