Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[John Corbett]

Let's be crystal clear here. If you agree that the EOP site is correct, then you must repudiate the autopsy brain photos as fraudulent, for the reasons I've already explained.

I have to do no such thing. For one, most of the autopsy brain photos have never been made public. The few autopsy photos that have been made public are of much lower quality than the originals. Even if I had the original photos, I am totally unqualified to analyze them as are you.

I look at the evidence the way a juror would be instructed to look at it in a criminal trial. Jurors are not expected to be knowledgeable in highly technical areas. What they are expected to do is listen to the expert testimony presented to them. In some cases, the opposing sides call their own expert witnesses who present conflicting opinions about the evidence. In those cases the jurors are expected to make reasonable judgements as to the credibility of these witnesses. Based on Dr. Cummings analysis of the fracture pattern in the x-rays, I find it more likely that the autopsy team's placement of the back-of-head entry wound was more accurate than the FPP. In the final analysis, it really isn't important which one is correct because either is compatible with the finding that Oswald fired that shot from the sniper's nest.

Just to refresh everyone's memory, a bullet entering the EOP site at a downward and rightward angle could not have missed tearing through the rear part of the right occipital lobe, but the brain photos show no damage whatsoever to that part of the lobe. In addition, even if make the debatable assumption that the EOP-site bullet barely missed hitting the cerebellum, it would have at least caused visible bleeding in the cerebellum, but the brain photos show no premortem bleeding in the cerebellum.

Again, I applaud your new position on the rear head entry wound's location, but you need to understand that if you accept the EOP site, you cannot believe the autopsy brain photos are authentic.

It's hardly a new position. I have never taken a hard stance as to which placement of the entry wound is correct because I don't find it important. What is important is I know Oswald fired the shot that created that entry wound. That is a slam dunk.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I have to do no such thing.

Yes, you do, if you're being objective and credible, but apparently you can't bring yourself to do that on this issue, since it would mean admitting that some of the autopsy evidence was altered or faked.

For one, most of the autopsy brain photos have never been made public. The few autopsy photos that have been made public are of much lower quality than the originals. Even if I had the original photos, I am totally unqualified to analyze them as are you.

Oh, please. I mean, come on. Aren't you embarrassed to float such a silly, obvious dodge? Every single expert who has examined the supposedly "original" brain photos has noted no damage to the rear part of the occipital lobes and only the very slightest damage to the cerebellum.

When the FPP confronted Humes, Finck, and Boswell with the absence of any damage to these areas in the brain photos that would be exxpected from an EOP-site bullet, when they were all viewing the photos together, the autopsy doctors could not explain it. Finck simply said, "I don't know. I cannot answer your question." Humes's only response was to offer the humorous, lame, and irrelevant point that the brain photos are not 3D, never mind that the photos show all sides of the brain, including the bottom. Boswell offered no response at all.

I look at the evidence the way a juror would be instructed to look at it in a criminal trial. Jurors are not expected to be knowledgeable in highly technical areas. What they are expected to do is listen to the expert testimony presented to them. In some cases, the opposing sides call their own expert witnesses who present conflicting opinions about the evidence. In those cases the jurors are expected to make reasonable judgements as to the credibility of these witnesses. Based on Dr. Cummings analysis of the fracture pattern in the x-rays, I find it more likely that the autopsy team's placement of the back-of-head entry wound was more accurate than the FPP. In the final analysis, it really isn't important which one is correct because either is compatible with the finding that Oswald fired that shot from the sniper's nest.

LOL! It seemed for a moment like you were allowing yourself to actually go where the evidence points regarding the entry site, but I see you've realized the impossible problems such an admission poses and so now you're waffling and pretending that it's no big deal because either entry site supposedly works.

No, either entry point is not compatible with a trajectory back to the sixth-floor window. Again, for the umpteenth time, the WC's experts could only get the EOP site to align with the sixth-floor window by assuming a forward lean of well over 50 degrees for JFK's head when the bullet hit. And, again, for the umpteenth time, Sturdivan can only get the EOP site's trajectory to "work" by assuming that the bullet came from the sixth-floor window, penetrated the skull at a 15-degree downward angle, but then somehow, someway suddenly veered sharply upward, never mind that not a single bullet in the WC's head-shot wound ballistics tests performed such an amazing feat, and never mind that Sturdivan could not cite a single case where an FMJ bullet, or any kind of bullet, has performed such a feat.

Moreover, as mentioned, the EOP site totally contradicts the brain photos and the WC's head-shot wound ballistics tests and cannot possibly explain the high fragment trail, which is why the autopsy doctors ignored it.

Also, neither the EOP site nor the cowlick site can explain the outer-table back-of-head fragments, which is why the FPP ignored the McDonnel fragment, nor can either wound site explain the 7x2 mm fragment in the right orbit (unless we assume that the autopsy report's low fragment trail was removed from the skull x-rays). 

BTW, are you ever going to explain why the low fragment trail does not appear on the skull x-rays? Where did it go?

It's hardly a new position. I have never taken a hard stance as to which placement of the entry wound is correct because I don't find it important. What is important is I know Oswald fired the shot that created that entry wound. That is a slam dunk.

You don't "know" any such thing, and you clearly cannot explain the unsolvable problems posed for your theory by the medical evidence. After saying you leaned toward the EOP site, now you're waffling and gasping that either entry site works, when your own beloved FPP noted that the brain photos demonstrably refute the EOP site (assuming the brain photos are authentic).

Are you ever going to explain how JFK's brain could have lost only "less than 1-2 ounces" of brain tissue given the accounts that record that pieces of JFK's brain were blown or dropped onto 16 surfaces, not counting the "rather large chunk of brain" that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER? No, of course not. And let's remember that Bugliosi's answer to the numerous credible accounts of a large amount of missing brain tissue was to cite Baden's disclosure that the brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing tissue.

[John Corbett]

Yes, you do, if you're being objective and credible, but apparently you can't bring yourself to do that on this issue, since it would mean admitting that some of the autopsy evidence was altered or faked.

Oh, please. I mean, come on. Aren't you embarrassed to float such a silly, obvious dodge? Every single expert who has examined the supposedly "original" brain photos has noted no damage to the rear part of the occipital lobes and only the very slightest damage to the cerebellum.

When the FPP confronted Humes, Finck, and Boswell with the absence of any damage to these areas in the brain photos that would be exxpected from an EOP-site bullet, when they were all viewing the photos together, the autopsy doctors could not explain it. Finck simply said, "I don't know. I cannot answer your question." Humes's only response was to offer the humorous, lame, and irrelevant point that the brain photos are not 3D, never mind that the photos show all sides of the brain, including the bottom. Boswell offered no response at all.

LOL! It seemed for a moment like you were allowing yourself to actually go where the evidence points regarding the entry site, but I see you've realized the impossible problems such an admission poses and so now you're waffling and pretending that it's no big deal because either entry site supposedly works.

No, either entry point is not compatible with a trajectory back to the sixth-floor window. Again, for the umpteenth time, the WC's experts could only get the EOP site to align with the sixth-floor window by assuming a forward lean of well over 50 degrees for JFK's head when the bullet hit. And, again, for the umpteenth time, Sturdivan can only get the EOP site's trajectory to "work" by assuming that the bullet came from the sixth-floor window, penetrated the skull at a 15-degree downward angle, but then somehow, someway suddenly veered sharply upward, never mind that not a single bullet in the WC's head-shot wound ballistics tests performed such an amazing feat, and never mind that Sturdivan could not cite a single case where an FMJ bullet, or any kind of bullet, has performed such a feat.

Moreover, as mentioned, the EOP site totally contradicts the brain photos and the WC's head-shot wound ballistics tests and cannot possibly explain the high fragment trail, which is why the autopsy doctors ignored it.

Also, neither the EOP site nor the cowlick site can explain the outer-table back-of-head fragments, which is why the FPP ignored the McDonnel fragment, nor can either wound site explain the 7x2 mm fragment in the right orbit (unless we assume that the autopsy report's low fragment trail was removed from the skull x-rays). 

BTW, are you ever going to explain why the low fragment trail does not appear on the skull x-rays? Where did it go?

You don't "know" any such thing, and you clearly cannot explain the unsolvable problems posed for your theory by the medical evidence. After saying you leaned toward the EOP site, now you're waffling and gasping that either entry site works, when your own beloved FPP noted that the brain photos demonstrably refute the EOP site (assuming the brain photos are authentic).

Are you ever going to explain how JFK's brain could have lost only "less than 1-2 ounces" of brain tissue given the accounts that record that pieces of JFK's brain were blown or dropped onto 16 surfaces, not counting the "rather large chunk of brain" that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER? No, of course not. And let's remember that Bugliosi's answer to the numerous credible accounts of a large amount of missing brain tissue was to cite Baden's disclosure that the brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing tissue.

Can you name one qualified medical examiner who has seen the autopsy evidence who has concluded the photos are fraudulent?

I didn't think so.

As for whether I am ever going to explain your perceived anomalies my answer is, of course I'm not. That's not my job. I leave those judgements to people who are qualified to make those judgements. You don't seem to have any qualms about substituting your amateur's analysis of the medical evidence for that of people who are actually competent to make such judgements. If you could find a competent person who has seen the autopsy evidence and shares your conclusion, we would have something to talk about, but you don't.

As for unsolvable problems, those are all in your head. I have no explanation for what goes on in there.

[Lance Payette]

As astute readers will recall, in MTG's somewhat comical thread about "logic" and "critical thinking" in relation to the JFKA, Professor Payette noted at least two logical fallacies in MTG original post: the ad populum (appeal to popularity) fallacy and the appeal to authority fallacy. These two are the lifeblood of MTG's thinking. This was not an inspiring start when your thread has "logic" and "critical thinking" in its very title.

Today we highlight the third leg of MTG's fallacious thinking.

Astute readers, and even complete dolts, cannot fail to notice how often - i.e., constantly - MTG employs absolutist terms such as "unsolvable," "undeniable" and "impossible." Scarcely a thread title or post of MTG's does not employ such absolutist terminology, which you "cannot refute."

This is called the absolutist language fallacy or sometimes the "black-and-white thinking" fallacy. When you add it into the mix with the appeal to popularity fallacy and appeal to authority fallacy, MTG's posts and indeed his thinking are pretty much One Big Fallacy.

The interesting part is that the psychological and sociological studies that Professor Payette often references have identified absolutist thinking and the use of absolutist language as among the hallmarks of the conspiracy mindset:

"Study 2 introduced the concept of Socio-Cognitive Polarization (SCP) as a potential mediating factor. SCP encompasses xenophobia, absolutism, and conservatism—factors that have been increasingly recognized as relevant to the formation and maintenance of conspiracy beliefs (e.g., van Prooijen & van Vugt, 2018; Zmigrod et al., 2019)." Carola Salvi, Marta K. Mielicki, Alice Cancer, Paola Iannello, Tim George; "Exploring Meta-Reasoning Propositional Confidence in Conspiratorial Beliefs and Socio-Cognitive Polarization." Open Mind 2025; 9 1339–1362. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi.a.20

“Specifically, it has been shown that individuals with depression more frequently use a variety of terms that describe negative emotions, first-person pronouns (FPPs), common symptoms, and linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) categories deemed to correspond to ‘absolutist’ language.” The researchers then looked for what Cognitive Behavioural Therapists would label as “cognitive distortions’ in their speech in naturalistic conversations. Here they identified the overriding power of emotional reasoning (believing something is true because it feels true rather than because it logically makes sense)." Richard Bolstad, "Psychotherapy as Recovery from Conspiracy Theories," Transformations 2022, https://transformations.org.nz/conspiracy-therapy/

Keep this triad in mind as you giggle, titter, chortle and guffaw your way through MTG's work:

• Appeal to popularity
• Appeal to authority
• Absolutist language

[Tommy Shanks]

Keep up the great work, Lance!