Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[Jack Nessan]

IOW, you'll take the guy who dropped out of college and who worked in the entertainment industry as a marketer and seller, while I'll take the guy who holds an MD in radiation oncology, who worked as a board-certified radiation oncologist for decades, who used OD measurements frequently in his work, who holds a PhD in physics, who taught physics at a major university, and who has had several articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

This is not a bit surprising. Readers should keep in mind that you belong to a tiny fringe of the lone-gunman camp, that your zany version of the shooting is rejected even by the vast majority of your fellow lone-gunman theorists.

I recommend that those interested in doing further reading on OD measurements and the JFK skull x-rays read Dr. Mantik's 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis. It is available in paperback, digital (Kindle), and audio. In the book, Dr. Mantik more fully refines and explains his OD research, partly with the aid of additional OD measurements done with Dr. Doug DeSalles.

For example, regarding the impossible white patch seen on the lateral skull x-rays, Dr. Mantik and Dr. DeSalles performed OD measurements on the skull x-rays of nine other deceased persons in gunshot-to-head cases to serve as controls. They found that the contrast between the light and dark areas on those skull x-rays was only a fraction of the contrast on JFK’s lateral autopsy skull x-rays.

They obtained a range of OD measurements between the brightest and darkest areas on the nine skull x-rays. In general, the brightest areas of the nine coroner’s cases transmitted about two or three times as much light as the darkest areas, a vastly lower light-to-dark contrast than that seen on the JFK lateral x-rays.

On the right lateral JFK skull x-ray, Dr. Mantik took numerous OD measurements of two specific areas: the extremely bright area located anatomically behind the ear, i.e., the impossible white patch, and the very dark area in the front of the skull on the right lateral x-ray.

Amazingly, on the right lateral x-ray, OD measurements revealed that the white patch transmitted about 1,100 times more light than the very dark area in the front of the skull. In striking contrast, on the nine control x-rays from coroner's cases of gunshot-to-head victims, the ratio was only about 2 or 3 to 1 between the brightest area and the darkest area on each lateral x-ray.

These nine control cases, including all of their OD measurements, are discussed at length in Appendix F in Dr. Mantik's book. I quote from Appendix F:

These images [the control x-rays], made on DuPont X-ray film, were collected by Dr. Douglas DeSalles from a coroner’s file dating to the 1960s and early 1970s. DeSalles and I together measured these ODs. Contrary to the JFK X-ray films, no large areas of whiteness or blackness were seen on any of these films.

Three showed small black areas at the anterior tip of the frontal lobe—consistent with brain loss from this site. Measurements were made on nine of these skulls; the other ten did not appear visibly different in any way and were not specifically measured.

For the nine cases above, five sites were randomly selected in each frontal area and five in each posterior area. Means (averages) were obtained and ratios calculated. Case number six, with the highest ratio of 3.89, did have numerous tiny metal fragments in the frontal area; this somewhat higher ratio may have resulted from some missing frontal lobe.

The very low ODs in cases four and nine resulted from quite improper exposure times; despite this, however, the transmission ratios of 1.26 and 0.78 fell within the range of the other seven cases. It is striking that four of the nine cases actually showed greater whiteness (transparency) in the anterior area, i.e., the transmission ratios were less than one!

The primary point, though, is that none of these ratios was remotely like the JFK lateral autopsy films, where the ratio (P/F) was greater than one thousand.

Also recall that JFK had two lateral autopsy X-ray films; both were quite anomalous. By contrast, JFK’s premortem transmission ratios were not remarkable. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, Post Hill Press, 2024, pp. 498-499)

For the benefit of interested readers, Dr. Mantik provides several helpful appendices on OD measurements and the production of x-rays in the 1960s:

Appendix B: The Science and Mathematics of Optical Density

Appendix C: How Were X-rays Copied in 1963?

Appendix D: How Could X-rays Be Altered in 1963?

Appendix E: Patients’ Skull ODs

Appendix F: Forensic Skull ODs Coroner’s Cases: Death via Headshots Skull X-rays in Nine (of 19) Coroner’s Cases

Finally, I should add that only about 15% of my OP deals with Dr. Mantik's research as it relates to the conflict between the autopsy brain photos and the skull x-rays. You'd never know this to read the grasping, labored replies from WC apologists. The OP also discusses Dr. Fred Hodges' finding that the AP skull x-ray shows "a goodly portion" of the right brain to be missing, that Dr. Humes said that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away, that mortician Tom Robinson said the amount of missing brain equaled the size of a human fist, that several other witnesses said the brain was missing a substantial amount of tissue, and that bits of brain matter from JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.

Your pseudo expert with all of your favorite alphabet letters behind his name only seems interested in defending OD as a type of science when it is not. Don’t forget Dr Mantik also has microscope eyes. He sees things nobody else can see.

OD is not a science. Rejected by the science community. Dr Mantik’s defense of it did not help.

"Goodly portion.” What does that mean? A portion of a portion of a part? Also "apparently"? Was he estimating or guessing?

How about a definition in ounces as to what that means. Most likely it equates to 1 to 2 ounces. Just like Dr. Baden stated.

-----------

Interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as an example.  He does not confirm your EOP site nor cerebellum damage.

“In 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, was asked to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission. Among other things, he noted in his report that a "goodly portion" of the right brain was "missing":”

P and two lateral views show. . . . A goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing and the anterior part of the right cranial cavity contains air. ("Kennedy-Connally Shooting," report prepared for the Rockefeller Commission, April 1975, p. 2, available at https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32027#relPageId=3)

 

M Griffith:“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.”

Here is what Dr Hodges stated:

“"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."

No mention of either EOP or Cerebellum. Cam you explain why you think it should have damaged the cerebellum, but your chosen expert states it did not?

Just curious but do you see something in the Zapruder film that makes you think JFK did not suffer a head wound or was it just a different head wound? That would not make any sense.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dear Comrade Griffith, If true, was it an honest slipup, or the work of one of your "twenty to thirty" multi-tasking bad guys?-- Tom

Well, first off, there's no "if" here. There's no doubt that the brain photos do in fact show a brain with less than 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, whereas the skull x-rays show much more missing brain matter.

You ask, "Was it an honest slipup?" Oh, yes, it most certainly was a blunder. But, you have to keep in mind that everyone thought the autopsy materials would remain sealed until 2038. They were originally sealed by executive order for 75 years, along with all the other unpublished WC records, so the plotters assumed no one would see the autopsy photos and x-rays until 2038, and by that time every adult who was alive when JFK was shot would be dead.

Similarly, all the unpublished HSCA materials, including the unpublished interviews with the autopsy witnesses and the Parkland witnesses, were originally sealed for 50 years, so no one was supposed to see them until 2029. But then along came the movie JFK, then the JFK Records Act, and then the ARRB.

The cover-up began to unravel when Jim Garrison began his investigation in late 1966 and brought Clay Shaw to trail in 1969. Garrison's team raised enough valid questions about the autopsy findings that the DOJ felt compelled to convene the Clark Panel in early 1968 to rubber stamp the autopsy report.

But, by then then plotters had realized that even though the autopsy report gave the version of the shooting that they wanted, it contained a few key facts that had to be repudiated or covered up, especially the location of the rear head entry wound, the reference to the low fragment trail, and the failure to mention the high fragment trail.

Thus, the plotters added the 6.5 mm object to the AP x-ray in order to further incriminate Oswald and to make the case for moving the rear entry wound by a whopping 4 inches at least seem plausible, at least on its face. The forgers had enough sense to ghost the 6.5 mm image over the smaller genuine fragment in the rear outer table of the skull, ensuring that the two images would align vertically.

If they had not done this, i.e., if the 6.5 mm object were substantively higher or lower than where it is now, the forgery of the object would have been obvious--at the very least, the object would have aroused suspicion. If the 6.5 mm object did not align vertically with the small fragment, nobody would have identified the small fragment as the companion image of the 6.5 mm object. Without a partner image for the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays, the 6.5 mm object would have been exposed as an impossibility.

This vertical alignment was part of the reason that so many experts erroneously concluded that the two images were the same fragment. For example, the HSCA medical panel noted that the AP x-ray shows the 6.5 mm object to be "in approximately the same vertical plane as in the above-described lateral view."

The forgery of the 6.5 mm object was not perfect, but it was good enough to fool every expert who examined the x-rays for over three decades.

The forgers should have created an object on the lateral x-rays that matched the 6.5 mm object in size, density, and brightness, but this would have required a more complicated double exposure than the 6.5 mm object, and they may have assumed that placing the 6.5 mm object over the image of the small back-of-head fragment would suffice (it did for over three decades).

Plus, the science of optical density analysis of x-rays was barely in its infancy in 1963, so the forgers had no idea that one day scientists would detect their fakery with OD analysis.

[Tommy Shanks]

Thus, the plotters added the 6.5 mm object to the AP x-ray in order to further incriminate Oswald and to make the case for moving the rear entry wound by a whopping 4 inches at least seem plausible, at least on its face. The forgers had enough sense to ghost the 6.5 mm image over the smaller genuine fragment in the rear outer table of the skull, ensuring that the two images would align vertically.

This is the level of absurdity Michael Griffith would have us believe: imaginary "forgers" who are so adept at their imaginary jobs that they can fool every medical expert who ever examined the materials with the exception of the miraculous Dr. David Mantik. Come on now...

[Michael T. Griffith]

Another autopsy witness who confirmed the EOP entry site was Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman:

KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here. . . .
SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?
KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?
KELLERMAN: The little finger.
SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
KELLERMAN: Right. (2 H 81)

Kellerman confirmed this location when he drew a diagram of JFK's wounds for the HSCA. He put the rear head entry wound near the EOP and nowhere near the cowlick site.

Kellerman HSCA Wound Diagram
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i5dGWlyyDjlH6VtkDz1La4JQvVJ6-TKl/view?usp=sharing

It cannot be emphasized often enough that if the autopsy doctors were right about the location of the rear head entry wound (and they surely were), the brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain.

The HSCA FPP used the reverse of this point to try to get the autopsy doctors to repudiate the EOP entry site and embrace the cowlick entry site. The FPP pressed the autopsy doctors with the argument that the brain photos prove that no bullet could have entered at the EOP site because they show no damage to the cerebellum. IOW, if the brain photos are correct, the autopsy report's location for the wound must be grossly in error (by a whopping 4 inches).

Yet, Finck and Boswell refused to budge and insisted that the rear head entry wound was where the autopsy report places it, slightly above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP. In several instances they used the hairline as a reference point, in addition to the EOP.

I have never seen a WC apologist take note of the fact that when the FPP were asking Dr. Finck to identify the EOP site on the back-of-head autopsy photos, at one point Finck asked, "How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy?"

At almost the very last minute, after doggedly defending the EOP site, Humes finally caved in to the FPP and went along with the cowlick site. Yet, when he was interviewed by JAMA, he reverted to the EOP site.

The people who supplied the autopsy brain photos believed the photos showed damage that roughly/generally corresponded to the damage described in the autopsy report. They loosely approximated a back-to-front would track. But, they made two glaring errors: One, they failed to provide photos of a brain that showed substantial tissue loss. Two, they failed to provide photos of a brain that showed a wound track that began in the righthand side of the cerebellum and that did substantial damage to the cerebellum.

Bethesda Naval Hospital included a college of pathology, so there was no shortage of cadaver brains on hand. The forgers either (1) took an intact brain and shot a bullet through it or cut it and then photographed it, or (2) took photos of the brain of a person who'd been shot in the head.

Again, by September 1964, the plotters undoubtedly believed that their medical-evidence forgeries were "good enough" because the autopsy photos and x-rays were sealed for 75 years by a presidential order. They surely reasoned, "Hey, by the time these materials are released, we will all be dead, and 99% of all other people who are adults right now will be dead too, and those few who aren't dead will be too old to care about this stuff."

[Jack Nessan]

Another autopsy witness who confirmed the EOP entry site was Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman:

KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here. . . .
SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?
KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?
KELLERMAN: The little finger.
SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
KELLERMAN: Right. (2 H 81)

Kellerman confirmed this location when he drew a diagram of JFK's wounds for the HSCA. He put the rear head entry wound near the EOP and nowhere near the cowlick site.

Kellerman HSCA Wound Diagram
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i5dGWlyyDjlH6VtkDz1La4JQvVJ6-TKl/view?usp=sharing

It cannot be emphasized often enough that if the autopsy doctors were right about the location of the rear head entry wound (and they surely were), the brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain.

The HSCA FPP used the reverse of this point to try to get the autopsy doctors to repudiate the EOP entry site and embrace the cowlick entry site. The FPP pressed the autopsy doctors with the argument that the brain photos prove that no bullet could have entered at the EOP site because they show no damage to the cerebellum. IOW, if the brain photos are correct, the autopsy report's location for the wound must be grossly in error (by a whopping 4 inches).

Yet, Finck and Boswell refused to budge and insisted that the rear head entry wound was where the autopsy report places it, slightly above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP. In several instances they used the hairline as a reference point, in addition to the EOP.

I have never seen a WC apologist take note of the fact that when the FPP were asking Dr. Finck to identify the EOP site on the back-of-head autopsy photos, at one point Finck asked, "How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy?"

At almost the very last minute, after doggedly defending the EOP site, Humes finally caved in to the FPP and went along with the cowlick site. Yet, when he was interviewed by JAMA, he reverted to the EOP site.

The people who supplied the autopsy brain photos believed the photos showed damage that roughly/generally corresponded to the damage described in the autopsy report. They loosely approximated a back-to-front would track. But, they made two glaring errors: One, they failed to provide photos of a brain that showed substantial tissue loss. Two, they failed to provide photos of a brain that showed a wound track that began in the righthand side of the cerebellum and that did substantial damage to the cerebellum.

Bethesda Naval Hospital included a college of pathology, so there was no shortage of cadaver brains on hand. The forgers either (1) took an intact brain and shot a bullet through it or cut it and then photographed it, or (2) took photos of the brain of a person who'd been shot in the head.

Again, by September 1964, the plotters undoubtedly believed that their medical-evidence forgeries were "good enough" because the autopsy photos and x-rays were sealed for 75 years by a presidential order. They surely reasoned, "Hey, by the time these materials are released, we will all be dead, and 99% of all other people who are adults right now will be dead too, and those few who aren't dead will be too old to care about this stuff."

SA Kellerman is your new expert, really. Yeah, why not, of course he would know

What happened to Dr. Hodges as your expert?  Like Dr. Mantik, he will be missed. Are you running out of experts? Pretty soon the only expert left will be yourself and maybe a mouse in the corner.

Let's look back:

MGriffith “The OP also discusses Dr. Fred Hodges' finding that the AP skull x-ray shows "a goodly portion" of the right brain to be missing, that Dr. Humes said that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away”

Interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as your expert.  He does not confirm your EOP site nor cerebellum damage.

M Griffith:“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.”

Here is what Dr Hodges stated:
 
“"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."
 
No mention of either EOP or Cerebellum. Cam you explain why you think it should have damaged the cerebellum, but your chosen expert states it did not?

Actually, can you explain why you believe there was a third shot. That would go a long way in helping to understand this so-called conspiracy you have created.