JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on October 23, 2025, 02:21:59 PM
-
The JFK autopsy brain photos are among the most powerful, undeniable evidences of fraud in the JFK autopsy materials. Not realizing the enormous implications of his admission, Dr. Michael Baden, the chairman of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP), revealed to WC apologist Vincent Bugliosi that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of brain matter missing. However, we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, that the skull x-rays show a large amount of missing brain tissue, and that numerous witnesses said a substantial portion of JFK's brain was missing.
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":
AP 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)
In 1992, none other than Dr. James Humes, the chief JFK autopsy doctor, admitted to JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], May 27, 1992, p. 2798).
Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist, confirmed via OD measurements that only about 30% of the right side of the brain is present in the autopsy skull x-rays:
But here is the real problem: according to chief pathologist James Humes, “Two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away.”16 Such a major loss of brain tissue was confirmed by many other witnesses—at Parkland and at Bethesda. Furthermore, my own optical density measurements (made directly from the extant skull X-rays at the Archives) confirmed that only about 30% of the right brain remained. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 5)
Lone-gunman theorists have imploded when trying to deal with the unsolvable problem of the autopsy brain photos. Oddly enough, in response to the numerous accounts of a large amount of missing brain matter, chief WC apologist Vincent Bugliosi made the fatal blunder of relying on Dr. Michael Baden, the FPP chairman, who revealed to Bugliosi that the brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing. Said Bugliosi,
"Contrary to the myth," Dr. Michael Baden told me, people who have said that the president lost a good part of his brain “are absolutely wrong.” Baden says he saw the photographs taken of the president’s brain at the time of the autopsy, and under his direction the HSCA’s medical illustrator, Ida Dox, drew a diagram of the brain viewed from the top. (See sketch in photo section of book.) As Baden said in his testimony before the HSCA, the diagram “represents extensive damage and injury to the right top of the brain” (1 HSCA 304). (“It’s an exact depiction,” he told me.)
Note the words “damage and injury” as opposed to saying a large part of the brain was “missing.” And, indeed, the autopsy report says nothing about any significant part of the brain being missing.
[Quoting Baden] "Basically, the president's whole brain was still there. The right hemisphere was severely damaged and torn, but less than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing from the cranial cavity." (Endnotes for Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, W. W. Norton, 2007, pp. 283-284)
Only a drawing of one of the autopsy brain photos has been released, but several experts have been allowed to view all the brain photos at the National Archives. Baden got to view them at length as part of the HSCA FPP's review of the medical evidence. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have also seen all the brain photos. They have confirmed Baden's statement that the brain photos show only a very small amount of missing brain tissue, no more than 2 ounces. This proves those photos cannot be of JFK's brain, since the autopsy x-rays show only about 30% of the right half of the brain to be present, or, as Dr. Hodges put, they show "a goodly portion" of the right side of the brain to be missing.
Here are just a few of the eyewitness accounts regarding the amount of brain matter that was missing from the JFK's brain:
Floyd Riebe, who assisted John Stringer with taking photos at the autopsy, said that less than half the brain was present:
Q: Did you see the brain removed from President Kennedy?
A: What little bit there was left, yes.
Q: Were any photographs taken of the brain?
A: I think I did some when they were putting it in that stainless steel pail.
Q: When you say that there was not much left, what do you mean by that?
A: Well, it was less than half of a brain there. (Deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe, ARRB, 5/7/1997, pp. 43-44)
From Clint Hill's 11/22/1963 report, in which he describes what he saw at very close range as he rode on top of the limo's back seat on the way to Parkland--part of the brain was gone and there was a wound in the right-rear part of the head:
As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. (11/22/1963 report, p. 3)
When interviewed by CBS News in 2013, Clint Hill repeated his account of seeing a large amount of missing brain:
Scott Pelley: What did you see?
Clint Hill: Brain matter, blood, bone fragments all come out of the wound.… Then Mrs. Kennedy came up on the trunk. She was trying to grab some of that material and pull it back with her.… I got a hold of her and I put her in the backseat. … And when I did that, his body fell to its left into her lap. His face--is head was in her lap. The right side of his face was up. I could see his eyes were fixed. I could see an area through the skull that there was no brain matter in that area at all. So I assumed it was a fatal wound. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agent-who-jumped-on-jfks-limo-recounts-fateful-moments/)
Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the Parkland doctors, told the WC that at least a third of the brain had been blasted out:
You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue, had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding, which was occurring mainly from the large venous channel in the skull which had been blasted open. (6 H 33)
Secret Service agent Sam Kinney, who rode in the follow-up car, stated in a recorded interview with Vincent Palamara that brain matter splattered "all over" his windshield and arm:
The back of that Lincoln would be directly in front of me. Well, I had brain matter all over my windshield and arm. That's how close we were. (19:33-19:47 in video)
In 2003, Dr. Robert Grossman, one of the Parkland doctors, wrote that Jackie's dress was splattered with brain tissue and blood:
Her face was very white and she appeared to have been crying. She was wearing a light-colored dress. The lap of her dress was covered with blood and brain tissue. (https://www.deseret.com/2003/11/22/19797270/neurosurgeon-recalls-examining-the-dying-jfk)
From FBI agent Francis O'Neill's ARRB interview:
Mr. Gunn: Earlier in the deposition we referred to your observation of the brain being removed during the course of the autopsy Do you recall that?
Mr. O'Neill: Yes.
Mr. O'Neill: [After some discussion about removal procedures] "... Now once again too this is just a portion of it [the brain] because the rest of it was--you know, really gone. And it was a very, very large portion of it. . . .
Mr. Gunn: "Do you have any sense of what percentage of the brain was missing at the time it was removed from the cranium?
Mr. O'Neill: . . . It was--Oh well, more than half of the brain was missing. (ARRB Deposition of Former FBI SA Francis O'Neill, 9/12/1997, pp. 74-75)
Mortician Tom Robinson, who witnessed the autopsy and who helped to reassemble JFK's skull after the autopsy, said that the amount of brain missing in the back of the head was about the size of a closed fist:
Robinson said that he saw the brain removed from President Kennedy's body and that a large percentage of it was gone "in the back," from the "medulla," and that the portion of the brain that was missing was about the size of a closed fist. He described the condition of the brain in this area as the consistency of "soup." (Meeting Report, ARRB, 6/21/1996, p. 2)
Jack McNairy, who saw the limousine up-close at Parkland Hospital, said in a video-taped interview that there was "gray matter" splattered over a large part of the back seat:
As I looked around, I saw that there was gray matter splattered here [pointing to the inside of the rear passenger door to the right JFK's seat] and along the back of the front seat.
Patrolman H. B. McClain, who helped Jackie get out of the limousine at Parkland Hospital, said in a video-taped interview that there was "matter" splattered all over the inside of the right-hand side of the car:
I could see what looked like a piece of skull, some hair, and matter splattered all over inside the car. It was all on the right-hand side of the car, except the part of the skull--it was laying right in the middle.
JFK's brain matter was splattered onto 16 surfaces:
• The back seat of JFK’s limousine.
• The right-rear passenger door of the limo.
• The trunk/rear hood of the limo.
• The front seat of the limo (per Roy Kellerman).
• Roy Kellerman's coat ("it was all over my coat").
• The back of William Greer's coat (per Greer himself, and per Kellerman).
• Governor Connally's clothes.
• Nellie Connally's clothes.
• Officer Martin's clothes.
• Officer Hargis's clothes.
• Officer Martin's motorcycle.
• Officer Hargis's motorcycle.
• Sam Kinney's clothes (riding in the follow-up car).
• The windshield of the follow-up car.
• The drapes of JFK’s emergency room cart.
• Jackie's dress (she said JFK's brains were "all over me").
In my book A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy, I devote an entire chapter to the issue of the JFK autopsy brain photos vs. the skull x-rays, the eyewitness accounts of a substantial amount of missing brain matter, and the splattering of brain matter onto 16 surfaces.
-
Notice that barely anybody bothers to even reply to you as you continually trot out scroll-length posts about subjects nobody asked about? Give it a rest with the David Mantik idolatry. His claims of x-ray forgery are total nonsense.
-
Notice that barely anybody bothers to even reply to you as you continually trot out scroll-length posts about subjects nobody asked about? Give it a rest with the David Mantik idolatry. His claims of x-ray forgery are total nonsense.
I suspect that "former" KGB counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin pays him very well, indeed, to do it.
-
Notice that barely anybody bothers to even reply to you as you continually trot out scroll-length posts about subjects nobody asked about?
You're acting like a Flat Earther who's been confronted with satellite photography and with geographic-topographic measurements of the Earth.
Of course you WC apologists haven't "asked about" the hard science and the massive anecdotal evidence that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.
Give it a rest with the David Mantik idolatry. His claims of x-ray forgery are total nonsense.
LOL! Yeah, you'd rather rely on a chiropractor ("Dr." Chad Zimmerman) than on a board-certified radiation oncologist who routinely used optical-density (OD) measurements to make his diagnoses, who's had several articles on medical science published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and who also holds a doctorate in physics and taught physics at a major university.
And never mind that Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, has confirmed Dr. Mantik's OD measurements with his own independent OD measurements, hey? Just never mind that, right? You do realize that OD measurement is a recognized science, right? Right? Never mind that Dr. Fred Hodges and even Dr. Humes both said a large part of the right brain was missing, just as Dr. Mantik's OD measurements confirm, hey?
And what about all the other evidence I cited? What about Dr. Hodges' analysis of the skull x-rays? What about Humes's admission to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away? What about the eyewitness accounts of a large amount of missing brain or significant brain splatter provided by mortician Tom Robinson, Clint Hill, Dr. Grossman, Floyd Riebe, Sam Kinney, Robert McClelland, Francis O'Neill, Officer McClain, and Jack McNairy? I notice you said nothing about any of this evidence, nor about the 16 surfaces onto which bits of JFK's brain were blown.
Again, dealing with you guys is similar to dealing with members of a cult, with 9/11 Truthers, with Moon-landing deniers, etc. You know full well that you cannot explain how in the world the brain photos could be of JFK's brain given that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, given the numerous accounts of a large amount of missing brain, and given that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.
-
The JFK autopsy brain photos are among the most powerful, undeniable evidences [sic] of fraud in the JFK autopsy materials. Not realizing the enormous implications of his admission, Dr. Michael Baden, the chairman of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP), revealed to WC apologist Vincent Bugliosi that the autopsy brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of brain matter missing.
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Is GROK "hallucinating"?
ME: Are the photos [of JFK's skull and/or brain] that are held in the National Archives, and which seem to support Baden's view that the damage was limited, viewable by the public?
GROK: No, the JFK autopsy brain photographs held in the National Archives are not viewable by the public. While the broader JFK Assassination Records Collection—established under the 1992 JFK Records Act and encompassing over 5 million pages of documents, X-rays, and select photos—has been largely declassified and made freely accessible online or in person since the late 1990s (with full release mandated by 2017), the autopsy photographs, including the 14 brain photos, remain restricted due to an agreement with the Kennedy family. This stems from a 1966 deposit where the family donated the materials with conditions limiting access to protect their privacy, a policy upheld by a 1994 federal court ruling (Katz v. National Archives) under the Freedom of Information Act's privacy exemption (Exemption 6). Of the approximately 38-52 total autopsy images in the Archives, only about 9-11 (mostly black-and-white body and wound photos) are in the public domain, available via sources like the Internet Archive or books such as Robert Groden's The Killing of a President (1993). The brain photos, showing the formalin-fixed organ with limited damage as described by Dr. Baden, are available only to authorized researchers (e.g., via the HSCA in 1977 or ARRB in 1998) with family consent or court approval, and even then, under strict non-disclosure rules preventing reproduction or public sharing. No public exhibitions, online galleries, or reproductions exist for them.
ME: If they aren't viewable by the public, how do you know they support Baden's view?
GROK: My knowledge of the JFK autopsy brain photos supporting Dr. Michael Baden's description—showing the brain largely intact with only minor fragmentation (about 1-2 ounces of tissue missing from the right hemisphere due to the exit wound)—comes from Baden's own public statements and expert analyses, not from direct public viewing of the images. As chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Forensic Pathology Panel in 1977-1979, Baden and his nine-member team of pathologists were granted special access to the restricted materials in the National Archives, including the 14 color brain photographs (taken post-autopsy after formalin fixation). They reviewed these alongside X-rays and autopsy reports under non-disclosure conditions but issued a detailed public report (HSCA Volume VII, Appendix) confirming the brain's condition aligned with a single rear-entry bullet causing limited damage, consistent with the Warren Commission's findings. Baden elaborated on this in subsequent interviews and writings, such as his 1989 book Unnatural Death: Confessions of a Medical Examiner, where he described the photos as depicting "the whole brain...still there," with only superficial lacerations and small fragments absent, refuting conspiracy claims of massive tissue loss (e.g., half the brain missing, as alleged in some theories). He reiterated this in a 2007 interview with author Vincent Bugliosi for Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (endnote 441, p. 1006), stating the images showed no evidence of extensive destruction, only the expected trauma from a high-velocity exit wound in the right parietal-occipital region. These accounts are corroborated by other authorized reviewers, like the 1968 Clark Panel and 1975 Rockefeller Commission pathologists, who similarly described minimal brain disruption in their declassified reports (now public). While the photos themselves remain sealed—per a 1966 Kennedy family agreement upheld in a 1994 federal ruling (Katz v. National Archives) and unaffected by the 2025 JFK records releases, which focused on documents and did not alter autopsy image restrictions—Baden's firsthand observations, as a credentialed expert, provide the evidentiary basis for this conclusion. No credible disputes from panel members or subsequent ARRB (1994-1998) interviews with autopsy participants challenge his summary. [emphasis added]
-- Tom
-
A key fact to remember about the autopsy materials is that they were originally sealed by executive order for 75 years, so the plotters assumed no one would see the autopsy photos and x-rays until 2038. 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.
This could very well explain why the 6.5 mm object had not yet been added to the AP skull x-ray when the autopsy doctors reviewed the autopsy materials for five hours in 1966. They said nothing about the object in their report on the review. They could not have missed it. It is the most obvious, readily visible "fragment" on the AP x-ray. If they did see it during their review and chose to say nothing about it, this would be a damning, revealing omission. The first time anyone mentioned seeing the 6.5 mm object was when the Clark Panel examined the autopsy materials and issued their report in 1968, and this was also when the rear head entry wound's location was moved upward by an astonishing 4 inches.
But then along came Oliver Stone's movie JFK, which caused such a furor that it led to the passage of the 1992 JFK Records Act and to the creation of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).
But WC apologists seem to live in a world where the 1992 JFK Records Act and all the ARRB disclosures never happened.
-
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Is GROK "hallucinating"?
ME: Are the photos [of JFK's skull and/or brain] that are held in the National Archives, and which seem to support Baden's view that the damage was limited, viewable by the public?
GROK: No, the JFK autopsy brain photographs held in the National Archives are not viewable by the public. While the broader JFK Assassination Records Collection—established under the 1992 JFK Records Act and encompassing over 5 million pages of documents, X-rays, and select photos—has been largely declassified and made freely accessible online or in person since the late 1990s (with full release mandated by 2017), the autopsy photographs, including the 14 brain photos, remain restricted due to an agreement with the Kennedy family. This stems from a 1966 deposit where the family donated the materials with conditions limiting access to protect their privacy, a policy upheld by a 1994 federal court ruling (Katz v. National Archives) under the Freedom of Information Act's privacy exemption (Exemption 6). Of the approximately 38-52 total autopsy images in the Archives, only about 9-11 (mostly black-and-white body and wound photos) are in the public domain, available via sources like the Internet Archive or books such as Robert Groden's The Killing of a President (1993). The brain photos, showing the formalin-fixed organ with limited damage as described by Dr. Baden, are available only to authorized researchers (e.g., via the HSCA in 1977 or ARRB in 1998) with family consent or court approval, and even then, under strict non-disclosure rules preventing reproduction or public sharing. No public exhibitions, online galleries, or reproductions exist for them.
ME: If they aren't viewable by the public, how do you know they support Baden's view?
GROK: My knowledge of the JFK autopsy brain photos supporting Dr. Michael Baden's description—showing the brain largely intact with only minor fragmentation (about 1-2 ounces of tissue missing from the right hemisphere due to the exit wound)—comes from Baden's own public statements and expert analyses, not from direct public viewing of the images. As chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Forensic Pathology Panel in 1977-1979, Baden and his nine-member team of pathologists were granted special access to the restricted materials in the National Archives, including the 14 color brain photographs (taken post-autopsy after formalin fixation). They reviewed these alongside X-rays and autopsy reports under non-disclosure conditions but issued a detailed public report (HSCA Volume VII, Appendix) confirming the brain's condition aligned with a single rear-entry bullet causing limited damage, consistent with the Warren Commission's findings. Baden elaborated on this in subsequent interviews and writings, such as his 1989 book Unnatural Death: Confessions of a Medical Examiner, where he described the photos as depicting "the whole brain...still there," with only superficial lacerations and small fragments absent, refuting conspiracy claims of massive tissue loss (e.g., half the brain missing, as alleged in some theories). He reiterated this in a 2007 interview with author Vincent Bugliosi for Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (endnote 441, p. 1006), stating the images showed no evidence of extensive destruction, only the expected trauma from a high-velocity exit wound in the right parietal-occipital region. These accounts are corroborated by other authorized reviewers, like the 1968 Clark Panel and 1975 Rockefeller Commission pathologists, who similarly described minimal brain disruption in their declassified reports (now public). While the photos themselves remain sealed—per a 1966 Kennedy family agreement upheld in a 1994 federal ruling (Katz v. National Archives) and unaffected by the 2025 JFK records releases, which focused on documents and did not alter autopsy image restrictions—Baden's firsthand observations, as a credentialed expert, provide the evidentiary basis for this conclusion. No credible disputes from panel members or subsequent ARRB (1994-1998) interviews with autopsy participants challenge his summary. [emphasis added]
-- Tom
Is this some kind of joke? Or, do you suffer from a severe reading comprehension problem? Did you miss the part where I noted that Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser have seen the autopsy brain photos at the National Archives and have confirmed Dr. Baden's statement that they show virtually no missing brain tissue, no more than 1-2 ounces of missing tissue? Did you somehow miss that?
That's the whole point: The brain photos show a brain that has virtually no missing tissue, yet we know from the skull x-rays that about 2/3 of the right brain were blown away, as Dr. Fred Hodges confirmed for the Rockefeller Commission, as Dr. Humes himself admitted to JAMA, and as Dr. Mantik confirmed with OD measurements of the x-rays, and that pieces of brain matter from JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.
You're so emotionally determined not to see evidence that destroys your fiction that you somehow missed this simple devastating point, the whole point of my OP. Yes, Baden was correct, and the fact that the autopsy brain photos show a brain with only 1-2 ounces of missing tissue proves that the brain in the photos cannot possibly be JFK's brain.
-
The brain photos show a brain that has virtually no missing tissue, yet we know from the skull x-rays that about 2/3 of the right brain were blown away, as Dr. Fred Hodges confirmed for the Rockefeller Commission, as Dr. Humes himself admitted to JAMA, and as Dr. Mantik confirmed with OD measurements of the x-rays, and that pieces of brain matter from JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces. Yes, Baden was correct, and the fact that the autopsy brain photos show a brain with only 1-2 ounces of missing tissue proves that the brain in the photos cannot possibly be JFK's brain.
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
-
You're acting like a Flat Earther who's been confronted with satellite photography and with geographic-topographic measurements of the Earth.
Of course you WC apologists haven't "asked about" the hard science and the massive anecdotal evidence that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.
LOL! Yeah, you'd rather rely on a chiropractor ("Dr." Chad Zimmerman) than on a board-certified radiation oncologist who routinely used optical-density (OD) measurements to make his diagnoses, who's had several articles on medical science published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and who also holds a doctorate in physics and taught physics at a major university.
And never mind that Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, has confirmed Dr. Mantik's OD measurements with his own independent OD measurements, hey? Just never mind that, right? You do realize that OD measurement is a recognized science, right? Right? Never mind that Dr. Fred Hodges and even Dr. Humes both said a large part of the right brain was missing, just as Dr. Mantik's OD measurements confirm, hey?
And what about all the other evidence I cited? What about Dr. Hodges' analysis of the skull x-rays? What about Humes's admission to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away? What about the eyewitness accounts of a large amount of missing brain or significant brain splatter provided by mortician Tom Robinson, Clint Hill, Dr. Grossman, Floyd Riebe, Sam Kinney, Robert McClelland, Francis O'Neill, Officer McClain, and Jack McNairy? I notice you said nothing about any of this evidence, nor about the 16 surfaces onto which bits of JFK's brain were blown.
Again, dealing with you guys is similar to dealing with members of a cult, with 9/11 Truthers, with Moon-landing deniers, etc. You know full well that you cannot explain how in the world the brain photos could be of JFK's brain given that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, given the numerous accounts of a large amount of missing brain, and given that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.
Of course you WC apologists haven't "asked about" the hard science and the massive anecdotal evidence that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.
Last time I checked, Pat Speer was not a WC apologist. He has a strong opinion on Dr Mantik as basically a clown.
Pat Speer’s opinion on JFK’s headshot controversy and Dr Mantik
But here are some problems.
1. Everyone who's studied the post-mortem x-rays and compared them to JFK's pre-mortem x-rays has agreed they are of the same skull..
2. The autopsy report notes that the lining at the top of the brain which holds it in place was torn and loose. (This in itself is telling, as it designates the supposed exit location as an entrance.) In any event, the brain would thereby slump back in the skull when JFK was on his back.
3. The statements about the brain being gone are almost always made in conjunction with the skull defect being massive. It's clear then. that these men were describing the wound as seen after the skull defect was enlarged and the brain removed. Jenkins, of course, is an exception, in that he was right there when the brain was removed. He said he thought the brain appeared to be small and that Humes made a comment about how easily it came out. Well, heck, this is interesting. But it more logically suggests the underside of the brain was damaged and torn from its moorings than it suggests the skull wound was expanded, the brain removed, another brain inserted, and the skull wound closed back up before the brain observed and handled by Jenkins was removed. Dr. Humes did not normally remove brains, after all. That job was usually performed by an assistant, such as Jenkins. Secondly, the brains removed by Humes were not gunshot victims, where the moorings of the brain had been torn. So his commenting on the ease with which he removed the brain need not be a reference to body alteration, etc.
4. Dr. Mantik, one of the heroes of the alteration crowd, says the x-rays are deceptive and that they actually DO show the back of the head to be missing. Does that change your impression at all? Or do you agree with the likes of...well, me...that he is blowing smoke?
From patspeer.com, Chapter 13:
Even more disturbing, a September 16, 1977 article distributed by UPI reported that Dr. Russell Morgan had spoken at Michigan State University the day before, and had told reporters that "Mr. Kennedy's X-rays showed conclusively that a single-bullet fired from behind was the cause of death" and that "Congressional investigators should concentrate on other elements in their inquiry into the assassination."
Well, this is quite interesting. The last time Dr. Morgan had been quoted in the press about the assassination was but days before Dr. Cyril Wecht was to become the first non-government-affiliated pathologist to view the assassination materials at the archives, and in effect review his findings. And now, on the day before 6 members of the HSCA pathology panel were to visit the archives and review his findings, and meet with Dr. Humes (whose findings he'd rejected), Morgan re-appears, urging that no new study of the X-rays be conducted. In this context, his words read like a threat. Should everyone to look at the autopsy materials in between these two appearances have confirmed his findings, that would be one thing...but in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, a Professor of Radiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, where Morgan served as Dean, was asked to study Kennedy's X-rays on behalf the Rockefeller Commission, and had provided them a report which directly contradicted Morgan's re-interpretation of the head wound location. Yes, in a little discussed report long withheld from the public, in a passage rarely if ever quoted before I started broadcasting it all over the internet, Hodges refuted the findings of the Clark Panel, noting instead that "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." Even worse, for Morgan, was the next line: "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." Morgan, of course, had claimed there was no wound in the occipital bone on the X-rays or photographs, and had pushed the Clark Panel into concluding the wound was actually four inches or more higher on the back of Kennedy's skull, in the parietal bone.
Hodges' then still-secret report was thus bad news for Morgan. And seeing as Morgan was Hodges' boss, it was bad news that Morgan would almost certainly have discovered. It follows then that Morgan's urging congressional investigators to forget about the X-rays and focus on other matters may not have been so innocent, and was instead a plea designed to protect his own reputation. While this might seem a little harsh, let's remember Morgan's viewpoint but five years earlier. While he once was reportedly of the opinion that the X-rays were "produced in a hurry under extremely trying conditions" and were of "poor quality" and "severely over-exposed.," and that "great care and special techniques would be required before they would show the conclusive evidence," he now claimed they "showed conclusively that a single-bullet fired from behind was the cause of death" and that no further investigation was necessary. Perhaps he'd simply changed his mind and no longer felt the cowlick entrance he'd thought he'd "discovered" was a necessary ingredient to the single-assassin conclusion, and worth verifying. Or perhaps he simply didn't care if Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy or not, as long as his own reputation was protected
-
I think now is a good time to point out that Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the forensic radiologist who examined the JFK autopsy skull x-rays for the ARRB, said that the AP x-ray shows "that right frontal brain is missing" and that "the extremely dark region on the A-P x-ray depicting the upper right side of the cranium" indicates "some absence of brain" (Meeting Report, ARRB, 2/29/1996, p. 1).
Obviously, this is describing much more than just 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue. In fact, keep in mind that Baden noted that "less than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing," an observation confirmed by Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser when they viewed the autopsy brain photos at the National Archives.
Predictably, Jack Nessan has trotted out Pat Speer's embarrassing, amateurish attacks on Dr. Mantik's research, even though I have repeatedly pointed out that Dr. Mantik has shredded Speer's silly criticisms. As I've noted before, Speer has a pathological bias against the idea of any evidence alteration. Most of Speer's research is solid and worthwhile, but his attacks on Dr. Mantik and other scientists who've identified evidence of alteration are silly and erroneous.
This is a perfect example of how WC apologists make this forum a merry-go-around. Nessan and others know that Dr. Mantik has answered Speer in detail, but they never tell you that when they quote Speer on evidence alteration. To get some idea of just how bad and amateurish Speer's attacks on Dr. Mantik's research are, read Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer:
https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf
As just one example of how badly Speer blunders on the skull x-rays, Speer claims that the impossible white patch on the lateral x-ray is actually the overlapping bone near the right ear. It is hard to fathom how Speer could say this with a straight face. Anyone can look at the lateral x-ray and see that the overlapping bone is clearly to the right of the white patch and has nothing to do with it. They are undeniably in two different areas on the lateral x-ray.
Similarly, Speer's explanations for the 6.5 mm object show he is far out of his field and depth on the subject. I address Speer's attempt to provide innocent explanations for the 6.5 mm object at length in my book A Comforting Lie.
Speer has further discredited himself on this subject by making the ridiculous claim that optical-density (OD) measurements are useless for measuring or identifying metal in x-rays. Such a claim shows an unfortunate and inexcusable ignorance of the science of OD measurement. Speer made this claim when I pressed him to explain the OD measurements and pointed out to him that Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist, had confirmed Dr. Mantik's OD measurements with his own OD measurements.
Now, you watch: A few days or weeks from now, Nessan or some other WC apologist will once again cite Speer's attacks on Mantik's research, and they won't say a word about Mantik's response or about my critique.
Here's what Dr. Greg Henkelmann, another radiation oncologist, who likewise uses OD measurements in his work, has said about Dr. Mantik's OD research on the autopsy x-rays:
Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)
Finally, notice that not one of the responses from WC apologists in this thread offers any credible explanation for the fact that Dr. Fred Hodges noted that the skull x-rays show "a goodly portion of the right brain" is missing, that Dr. Humes admitted to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away, that mortician Tom Robinson said the amount of missing brain tissue equaled the size of a human fist, and that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.
It is simply preposterous and unserious to suggest that all the splattered/blasted brain matter that witnesses described seeing and/or feeling amounted to only 1-2 ounces.
-
I think now is a good time to point out that Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the forensic radiologist who examined the JFK autopsy skull x-rays for the ARRB, said that the AP x-ray shows "that right frontal brain is missing" and that "the extremely dark region on the A-P x-ray depicting the upper right side of the cranium" indicates "some absence of brain" (Meeting Report, ARRB, 2/29/1996, p. 1).
Obviously, this is describing much more than just 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue. In fact, keep in mind that Baden noted that "less than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing," an observation confirmed by Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser when they viewed the autopsy brain photos at the National Archives.
Predictably, Jack Nessan has trotted out Pat Speer's embarrassing, amateurish attacks on Dr. Mantik's research, even though I have repeatedly pointed out that Dr. Mantik has shredded Speer's silly criticisms. As I've noted before, Speer has a pathological bias against the idea of any evidence alteration. Most of Speer's research is solid and worthwhile, but his attacks on Dr. Mantik and other scientists who've identified evidence of alteration are silly and erroneous.
This is a perfect example of how WC apologists make this forum a merry-go-around. Nessan and others know that Dr. Mantik has answered Speer in detail, but they never tell you that when they quote Speer on evidence alteration. To get some idea of just how bad and amateurish Speer's attacks on Dr. Mantik's research are, read Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer:
https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf
As just one example of how badly Speer blunders on the skull x-rays, Speer claims that the impossible white patch on the lateral x-ray is actually the overlapping bone near the right ear. It is hard to fathom how Speer could say this with a straight face. Anyone can look at the lateral x-ray and see that the overlapping bone is clearly to the right of the white patch and has nothing to do with it. They are undeniably in two different areas on the lateral x-ray.
Similarly, Speer's explanations for the 6.5 mm object show he is far out of his field and depth on the subject. I address Speer's attempt to provide innocent explanations for the 6.5 mm object at length in my book A Comforting Lie.
Speer has further discredited himself on this subject by making the ridiculous claim that optical-density (OD) measurements are useless for measuring or identifying metal in x-rays. Such a claim shows an unfortunate and inexcusable ignorance of the science of OD measurement. Speer made this claim when I pressed him to explain the OD measurements and pointed out to him that Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist, had confirmed Dr. Mantik's OD measurements with his own OD measurements.
Now, you watch: A few days or weeks from now, Nessan or some other WC apologist will once again cite Speer's attacks on Mantik's research, and they won't say a word about Mantik's response or about my critique.
Here's what Dr. Greg Henkelmann, another radiation oncologist, who likewise uses OD measurements in his work, has said about Dr. Mantik's OD research on the autopsy x-rays:
Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)
Finally, notice that not one of the responses from WC apologists in this thread offers any credible explanation for the fact that Dr. Fred Hodges noted that the skull x-rays show "a goodly portion of the right brain" is missing, that Dr. Humes admitted to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away, that mortician Tom Robinson said the amount of missing brain tissue equaled the size of a human fist, and that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces.
It is simply preposterous and unserious to suggest that all the splattered/blasted brain matter that witnesses described seeing and/or feeling amounted to only 1-2 ounces.
How about instead of blindly following these experts you take the time to read what they are stating.
Reading this individual’s thoughts is flat out just painful. Mantik does nothing more than try to defend OD and never proves what Speer’s stated was wrong.
Isn’t it your argument that there is a 6.5mm object unaccounted for? That it was impossible for it to be in the location that it is supposedly found? Dr Mantik is statng it does not exist because it does not show up on both XRays.
Maybe there is more than one 6.5mm object.
“As radiologist David Mantik points out in the book edited by Fetzer, there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP [Forensic Pathology Panel] as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray, it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the president’s skull or scalp.”
Here is my favorite. He takes the title from Rowland as the Biggest BS artist of the JFKA. What a guy.
“These (exterior) pieces can actually be seen in my Figure 1 (horizontal lavender arrow). These observations were made before my Lasik surgery, when I was extremely myopic (-9 diopters) and I could see such small objects in amazing detail without eyeglasses”
Mantik can see things nobody else can see. How about use a magnifying glass, maybe one made with German glass- Leica perhaps.
The biggest question of them all is-- if he was a human microscope why have the Lasik surgery?
Optical Density as a science seems to be the biggest issue for Mantik. Only he sees the value of it.
“Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical], David Mantik and Doug Horne’s status within the so-called research community are of such a proportion that I find it necessary to note the numerous mistakes in their collected works. Here is one such mistake by Horne… Speer then quotes at length from Horne (who was citing me): in short, I stated that the HSCA site shows no entry (as confirmed by the OD data, a basis that Speer ignores), but Speer claims that this conclusion is evidence of my belief in an exit high on the rear of the head. He finishes by suggesting that the HSCA entry site may be real, but merely be located somewhere else! (No evidence is offered for this.) Here is my response to this semantic bog”
The 6,5mm object-- if memory serves ----this was one of your biggest concerns. It was about how impossible it was for this 6,5mm object to be located where it was. Turns out it was a piece of bone. Is there another 6.5 mm object or just the one?
Page 12—Humes did not see the 6,5mm object in the lateral.
His “slice” is just a bone spicule, certainly not metal. It has nothing to do with the case, except that it might have resulted from trauma. The only authentic large metal fragment involved in the autopsy is the 7x2 mm one (identified in my Figures 1 and 2), which Humes removed. Speer might also want to read again his own quotes from Humes (p. 25), about the 6.5 mm object: “I can’t be sure I see it in the lateral at all, do you?” And this one too: “I don’t remember retrieving anything of that size.”
Again, thanks to Mantik’s superhuman eyes, a discovery was made.
15.Does the metal fragment at the rear of the skull (OTF) correlate with the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP? (pp. 23-28)
“Yes—definitely! If you disagree, then try this question: Given the metal fragment at the rear (OTF) of the right lateral X-ray, where is its correlate on the AP? I have never found anyone who can answer this question—unless it lies (paradoxically) inside the 6.5 mm object. And that is precisely what my myopic eyes saw at NARA—an optical superposition of the faked 6.5 mm object over the underlying authentic fragment at the rear of the skull (OTF)”
Really. Rowland was a rank amateur compared to what Mantik dreamt up.
Optical Density measurements are totally the invention of Mantik. Even he has doubts.
“First, at a rather early stage in my OD work, after I had (wrongly) decided that the OD data were inconsistent with composite X-rays (in a widely, but privately, circulated paper, titled “2 + 2 = 4”), I had followed the data where (I thought) they led and stated that the X-rays must be authentic. Speer apparently does not know this history.”
This is the source of why Mantik believes the Xray's were faked.
“The correction of my mistake came from Arthur G. Haus and colleagues at Kodak, who advised me about image crossovers (from one side of the film to the other) in these 1960s X-rays, a technical problem that was later solved. (Initially, I had only known about modern X-ray films, where the image cannot effectively cross over from one side to the other.) The presence of such crossover in these JFK X-rays, though, re-opened the door to photographic alteration in the darkroom. Haus later read my paper, which discussed these image crossovers in the JFK X-rays. In view of this, Speer is demonstrably wrong to say that my mind has been forever closed. (Regarding the role of irrationality and bias in human decision making, see two excellent references—Irrationality: The Enemy Within 1991, Stuart Sutherland and Persuasion: Theory and Research 1990, Daniel J. O’Keefe.)”
Mantik’s whole response to Speer was an attempt to vindicate his use of OD as a tool. No one but Mantik believes it has any validity.
-
"Mantik’s whole response to Speer was an attempt to vindicate his use of OD as a tool. No one but Mantik believes it has any validity."
Amen, Jack. But these are the kinds of people Michael Griffth must resort to relying on to back up his nonsensical theories about x-ray alteration.
-
Let’s examine more evidence that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent, that they do not show JFK’s brain.
Dr. Boswell stated in his HSCA interview that "the brain was so torn up it would not have shown a tract" (Memorandum: Interview with J. Thornton Boswell, HSCA, August 16, 1977, p. 2). However, the brain in the autopsy brain photos does not look anything like a brain that was "so torn up" it would not have shown a tract. The brain in the alleged brain photos has virtually no tissue missing, has no damage at all on the left side, and has only one large laceration on the right side.
The HSCA FPP admitted that the brain seen in the x-rays of the isolated brain, i.e., the Group 6 x-rays, shows no anatomical features that associate that brain with the other autopsy photos, but the FPP then claimed that the damage (trauma) to the brain in the Group 6 x-rays, which they noted is mainly in the upper part (“superior aspect”) of the frontal lobes, is “certainly consistent” with the damage seen in the other autopsy photos and x-rays:
From the standpoint of positive identification, the most problematical group of autopsy x-rays are those of Group 6, which show the isolated brain. Here we could find no anatomical features that would associate this brain with the remaining autopsy photographs. However, the trauma to the brain, affecting primarily the superior aspect of the frontal lobes, is certainly consistent with the pattern of cranial trauma observed in the autopsy photographs and X-rays. (7 HSCA 50)
The third sentence in this paragraph is erroneous for a number of reasons. 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. The autopsy doctors reaffirmed the EOP location for the entry wound after reviewing the autopsy photos and x-rays for five hours in 1966. Yet, in the autopsy brain photos, the cerebellum is pristine, undamaged. FPP member Dr. George Loquvam noted that the brain photos show no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum, not even any bleeding.
This, of course, brings us to the damning and revealing—and now discredited—attempt to move the rear head entry wound upward by an astonishing 4 inches, from 1 cm above the EOP to 1.2 cm above the top point of the occipital bone (i.e., 1.2 cm above the lambda), which is in the area of cowlick. The Clark Panel clumsily began the effort in 1967, while making the brazenly false claim that the high fragment trail is the same fragment trail described in the autopsy report and that the high fragment trail lines up with the revised entry wound site. The HSCA FPP doubled down on the bogus cowlick site for the entry wound, in order to try to explain the high fragment trail and the 6.5 mm object in the rear outer table of the skull.
To believe that the entry wound was in the cowlick, i.e., 1.2 cm above the lambda instead of 1 cm above the EOP, you would have to believe that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole mistook a wound that was 10 cm (4 inches) above the EOP for a wound that was 1 cm (0.4 inches) above the EOP.
When the HSCA FPP asked Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole to identify the wound’s location, they each located the wound near the EOP, right about at the white spot just above the hairline in the back-of-head photo. The FPP found this concerning:
The panel was concerned about the apparent disparity between the localization of the wound in the photographs and X-rays and in the autopsy report and sought to clarify this discrepancy by interviewing the three pathologists, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck, and the radiologist, Dr Ebersole. Each was asked individually to localize the wound of entrance within any one of several of the above-referenced photographs after reviewing the photographs, x-rays, and autopsy report. In each instance they identified the approximate location of the entrance wound on a human skull and within the photographs as being in a position perceived by the panel to be below that described in the autopsy report. They also said it coincided with the rectangular white material interpreted by the panel as brain tissue present on top of the hair near the hairline. Each physician persisted in this localization notwithstanding the apparent discrepancy between that localization and the wound characterized by the panel members as a typical entrance wound in the more superior [the higher] "cowlick” area. (7 HSCA 114)
Here is the core of the problem that faced the HSCA FPP: If the autopsy doctors and Dr. Ebersole were right about the location of the rear head entry wound, the brain photos would have to be rejected as bogus, since the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum and since a bullet entering at the EOP site would have torn through the cerebellum.
Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole were not the only ones who said the entry wound was at the EOP site. FBI agent Francis O’Neill placed the wound near the EOP in his HSCA wound diagram. The autopsy photographer, John Stringer, said the wound was very close to the EOP.
A key development came in 2005, when former HSCA wound ballistics expert Dr. Larry Sturdivan rejected the cowlick site and endorsed the EOP site in his book The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination (pp. 165-180). A number of other experts have rejected the cowlick entry site and have endorsed the EOP site, including Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. David Mantik, Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Gary Aguilar, and Dr. Cyril Wecht.
Again, if the autopsy report’s location of the rear head entry wound is correct, and it most certainly is, then the autopsy brain photos cannot be photos of JFK’s brain.
-
How about instead of blindly following these experts you take the time to read what they are stating.
Reading this individual’s thoughts is flat out just painful. Mantik does nothing more than try to defend OD and never proves what Speer’s stated was wrong.
Isn’t it your argument that there is a 6.5mm object unaccounted for? That it was impossible for it to be in the location that it is supposedly found? Dr Mantik is statng it does not exist because it does not show up on both XRays.
Maybe there is more than one 6.5mm object.
“As radiologist David Mantik points out in the book edited by Fetzer, there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP [Forensic Pathology Panel] as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray, it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the president’s skull or scalp.”
Here is my favorite. He takes the title from Rowland as the Biggest BS artist of the JFKA. What a guy.
“These (exterior) pieces can actually be seen in my Figure 1 (horizontal lavender arrow). These observations were made before my Lasik surgery, when I was extremely myopic (-9 diopters) and I could see such small objects in amazing detail without eyeglasses”
Mantik can see things nobody else can see. How about use a magnifying glass, maybe one made with German glass- Leica perhaps.
The biggest question of them all is-- if he was a human microscope why have the Lasik surgery?
Optical Density as a science seems to be the biggest issue for Mantik. Only he sees the value of it.
“Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical], David Mantik and Doug Horne’s status within the so-called research community are of such a proportion that I find it necessary to note the numerous mistakes in their collected works. Here is one such mistake by Horne… Speer then quotes at length from Horne (who was citing me): in short, I stated that the HSCA site shows no entry (as confirmed by the OD data, a basis that Speer ignores), but Speer claims that this conclusion is evidence of my belief in an exit high on the rear of the head. He finishes by suggesting that the HSCA entry site may be real, but merely be located somewhere else! (No evidence is offered for this.) Here is my response to this semantic bog”
The 6,5mm object-- if memory serves ----this was one of your biggest concerns. It was about how impossible it was for this 6,5mm object to be located where it was. Turns out it was a piece of bone. Is there another 6.5 mm object or just the one?
Page 12—Humes did not see the 6,5mm object in the lateral.
His “slice” is just a bone spicule, certainly not metal. It has nothing to do with the case, except that it might have resulted from trauma. The only authentic large metal fragment involved in the autopsy is the 7x2 mm one (identified in my Figures 1 and 2), which Humes removed. Speer might also want to read again his own quotes from Humes (p. 25), about the 6.5 mm object: “I can’t be sure I see it in the lateral at all, do you?” And this one too: “I don’t remember retrieving anything of that size.”
Again, thanks to Mantik’s superhuman eyes, a discovery was made.
15.Does the metal fragment at the rear of the skull (OTF) correlate with the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP? (pp. 23-28)
“Yes—definitely! If you disagree, then try this question: Given the metal fragment at the rear (OTF) of the right lateral X-ray, where is its correlate on the AP? I have never found anyone who can answer this question—unless it lies (paradoxically) inside the 6.5 mm object. And that is precisely what my myopic eyes saw at NARA—an optical superposition of the faked 6.5 mm object over the underlying authentic fragment at the rear of the skull (OTF)”
Really. Rowland was a rank amateur compared to what Mantik dreamt up.
Optical Density measurements are totally the invention of Mantik. Even he has doubts.
“First, at a rather early stage in my OD work, after I had (wrongly) decided that the OD data were inconsistent with composite X-rays (in a widely, but privately, circulated paper, titled “2 + 2 = 4”), I had followed the data where (I thought) they led and stated that the X-rays must be authentic. Speer apparently does not know this history.”
This is the source of why Mantik believes the Xray's were faked.
“The correction of my mistake came from Arthur G. Haus and colleagues at Kodak, who advised me about image crossovers (from one side of the film to the other) in these 1960s X-rays, a technical problem that was later solved. (Initially, I had only known about modern X-ray films, where the image cannot effectively cross over from one side to the other.) The presence of such crossover in these JFK X-rays, though, re-opened the door to photographic alteration in the darkroom. Haus later read my paper, which discussed these image crossovers in the JFK X-rays. In view of this, Speer is demonstrably wrong to say that my mind has been forever closed. (Regarding the role of irrationality and bias in human decision making, see two excellent references—Irrationality: The Enemy Within 1991, Stuart Sutherland and Persuasion: Theory and Research 1990, Daniel J. O’Keefe.)”
Mantik’s whole response to Speer was an attempt to vindicate his use of OD as a tool. No one but Mantik believes it has any validity.
I guess you are hoping that no one will bother to read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer. If they do, they will see just how utterly dishonest, misleading, and incompetent your reply is. They will also see that Speer is downright irrational and ignorant when it comes to optical-density (OD) measurements and reading x-rays, and that Mantik demolishes Speer's amateurish nonsense.
Readers might be interested to know that Speer has no college degree. He dropped out of college soon after enrolling to pursue a career in the entertainment industry. Yet, lone-gunman theorists trust Speer over Dr. Mantik, even though Dr. Mantik (1) holds an MD in radiation oncology, (2) holds a PhD in physics, (3) frequently used OD measurements in his work as a radiation oncologist, (4) was a professor of physics at the University of Michigan, and (5) has had several articles relating to radiation published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Lone-gunman theorists also trust Speer over all the experts who have endorsed Dr. Mantik's research.
Who are the experts who have endorsed Dr. Mantik's research? Here is a partial list: Dr. Cyril Wecht (forensic pathologist and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences), Dr. Robert Livingston (a Nobel-prize winning neuroscientist, a former director of NIH, and the scientist who developed some of the first 3D images of the human brain), Dr. Gary Aguilar (clinical professor of ophthalmology, University of California), Dr. Art Snyder (physicist who worked at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center), Dr. Charles Crenshaw (former chief of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth), Arthur G. Haus (former director of medical physics at Kodak, the author of books on x-ray film processing, and a former member of the American College of Radiology's Mammography Accreditation and Quality Assurance Committees), Roy Schaeffer (an expert in film development who served a six-year federal apprenticeship in film development), Dr. John Costella (professor of physics, University of Melbourne, and the author of four articles on physics published in the American Journal of Physics), Daryll Weatherly (mathematician), Thom Whitehead (post-production film editor), Sydney Wilkinson (post-production film expert), Garrett Smith (former Paramount vice president for production technology and digital mastering operations), and Paul Rutan Jr. (an film industry-recognized authority on motion picture film formats with extensive experience in laboratory, optical, HD, and digital formats).
Allow me to repeat what Dr. Greg Henkelmann, a board-certified radiation oncologist, has said about Dr. Mantik and his research:
Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)
BTW, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, a former HSCA wound ballistics consultant, acknowledged in his 2005 book that one of the reasons we know the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray cannot be metallic is that it has no companion image on the lateral x-rays, just as Dr. Mantik has pointed out.
I recommend that interested readers read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Pat Speer:
https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf
-
I guess you are hoping that no one will bother to read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer. If they do, they will see just how utterly dishonest, misleading, and incompetent your reply is. They will also see that Speer is downright irrational and ignorant when it comes to optical-density (OD) measurements and reading x-rays, and that Mantik demolishes Speer's amateurish nonsense.
Readers might be interested to know that Speer has no college degree. He dropped out of college soon after enrolling to pursue a career in the entertainment industry. Yet, lone-gunman theorists trust Speer over Dr. Mantik, even though Dr. Mantik (1) holds an MD in radiation oncology, (2) holds a PhD in physics, (3) frequently used OD measurements in his work as a radiation oncologist, (4) was a professor of physics at the University of Michigan, and (5) has had several articles relating to radiation published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Lone-gunman theorists also trust Speer over all the experts who have endorsed Dr. Mantik's research.
Who are the experts who have endorsed Dr. Mantik's research? Here is a partial list: Dr. Cyril Wecht (forensic pathologist and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences), Dr. Robert Livingston (a Nobel-prize winning neuroscientist, a former director of NIH, and the scientist who developed some of the first 3D images of the human brain), Dr. Gary Aguilar (clinical professor of ophthalmology, University of California), Dr. Art Snyder (physicist who worked at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center), Dr. Charles Crenshaw (former chief of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth), Arthur G. Haus (former director of medical physics at Kodak, the author of books on x-ray film processing, and a former member of the American College of Radiology's Mammography Accreditation and Quality Assurance Committees), Roy Schaeffer (an expert in film development who served a six-year federal apprenticeship in film development), Dr. John Costella (professor of physics, University of Melbourne, and the author of four articles on physics published in the American Journal of Physics), Daryll Weatherly (mathematician), Thom Whitehead (post-production film editor), Sydney Wilkinson (post-production film expert), Garrett Smith (former Paramount vice president for production technology and digital mastering operations), and Paul Rutan Jr. (an film industry-recognized authority on motion picture film formats with extensive experience in laboratory, optical, HD, and digital formats).
Allow me to repeat what Dr. Greg Henkelmann, a board-certified radiation oncologist, has said about Dr. Mantik and his research:
Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)
BTW, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, a former HSCA wound ballistics consultant, acknowledged in his 2005 book that one of the reasons we know the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray cannot be metallic is that it has no companion image on the lateral x-rays, just as Dr. Mantik has pointed out.
I recommend that interested readers read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Pat Speer:
https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf
Read every word. The whole rebuttal was just hokey. If you had bothered to read it you would know that it was a farce.
This statement sums it all up. Anybody that is entertaining the idea of reading Mantiks rebuttal I would not waist the time.
Reading this individual’s thoughts is flat out just painful. Mantik does nothing more than try to defend OD and never proves what Speer’s stated was wrong.
This whole fake Autopsy x rays and photos was hoax is just another one of Michael's fantasy stories. Mantik quotes Speer often enough that the real story becomes obvious even in the rebuttal nonsense.
-
Read every word. The whole rebuttal was just hokey. If you had bothered to read it you would know that it was a farce.
This statement sums it all up. Anybody that is entertaining the idea of reading Mantiks rebuttal I would not waist the time.
Reading this individual’s thoughts is flat out just painful. Mantik does nothing more than try to defend OD and never proves what Speer’s stated was wrong.
This whole fake Autopsy x rays and photos was hoax is just another one of Michael's fantasy stories. Mantik quotes Speer often enough that the real story becomes obvious even in the rebuttal nonsense.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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."
-
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.
-
I see Jack Nessan is doing more straining and blundering, even to the point of making the hilarious claim that "OD is not a science." Humm, tell that to the thousands of radiation oncologists and other scientists who use OD measurements in their work. Clearly, he still has not bothered to read Dr. Mantik's OD research. Here are some other sources on the science of OD measurement:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b61c/98657a5333aa4076b02de8f3f62ba03b6180.pdf
https://www.idex-hs.com/contact/contact-us/faqs/optical-filters-faqs/what-is-optical-density
https://www.aapm.org/meetings/02am/pdf/8321-71068.pdf
https://www.bmglabtech.com/en/blog/optical-density-for-absorbance-assays/
SA Kellerman is your new expert, really. Yeah, why not, of course he would know.
This is your answer to the fact that Kellerman got a prolonged look at JFK's wounds and said the rear head entry wound was at the EOP? No one said Kellerman was an "expert." You don't have to be an expert to see that a small wound is near the hairline and the EOP and not a whopping 4 inches higher in the cowlick.
What happened to Dr. Hodges as your expert? . . . Interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as your expert. He does not confirm your EOP site. . . .
Wrong again. Hodges did confirm the EOP site. You'd better go back and read what he said on pp. 2-3. He specifically mentioned "a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region" (p. 3), and he specified that the "x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput" (p. 3). You even quoted these statements, but obviously did not understand them.
The debunked cowlick site was claimed to be above the occiput and in the right parietal bone, about 0.8 cm to the right of the sagittal suture and 1.7 cm above the lambda. The EOP site is in the righthand side of the occiput, i.e., "the right occiput."
. . . nor cerebellum damage.
I never said he confirmed cerebellar damage. He neither confirmed nor denied cerebellar damage, i.e., damage to the cerebellum. He made no comment either way on it.
You keep dancing around the core problems:
(1) The autopsy photos, the autopsy doctors, several experts, and several eyewitnesses support the EOP site, but the brain photos do not show the damage that would have been done by the EOP-site bullet. Any bullet entering at the EOP site would have torn through the cerebellum, but the brain photos show a virtually intact cerebellum.
(2) We know that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, and several witnesses reported that a substantial portion of the brain was blown away, and, crucially, the skull x-rays show a large amount of the right brain missing, but the brain photos show a brain that is missing "less than" 1-2 ounces of brain tissue.
Another strong line of evidence that proves that the autopsy photos are not of JFK's brain is the evidence that there were two supplemental brain exams, that Finck was excluded from the first brain exam, that the official autopsy photographer did not take the brain photos in evidence, and Finck's comment that the brain looked different at the brain exam he attended than it did at the autopsy. Doug Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for military records at the time, compiled this evidence in a 32-page ARRB memo, a memo that the Washington Post found convincing:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_BrainExams.pdf
Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, noted that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex at the location of the alleged cowlick entry wound:
There is no entrance wound where the HSCA locates it. The autopsy photographs show intact cerebral cortex at the point that the HSCA claims is an entrance wound. This is confirmed by correct interpretation of the X-rays. (https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
Riley also noted that there is no connection between the high fragment trail and the cavitation wound, which is well below that trail, and that the cavitation wound is consistent with the EOP entry site:
The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. . . .
The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. . . .
There are clear signs of an entrance wound where it was described by the prosectors. (https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
Simply put, the autopsy materials show two separate, unconnected wound paths through JFK's head, one near the top of the skull (the high fragment trail) and the other several inches lower, proving beyond any doubt that two bullets hit the head. This is one of the reasons the autopsy doctors said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report or in their testimony. The other reason was that they knew there was no rear entry wound that corresponded with the high fragment trail.
-
I see Jack Nessan is doing more straining and blundering, even to the point of making the hilarious claim that "OD is not a science." Humm, tell that to the thousands of radiation oncologists and other scientists who use OD measurements in their work. Clearly, he still has not bothered to read Dr. Mantik's OD research. Here are some other sources on the science of OD measurement:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b61c/98657a5333aa4076b02de8f3f62ba03b6180.pdf
https://www.idex-hs.com/contact/contact-us/faqs/optical-filters-faqs/what-is-optical-density
https://www.aapm.org/meetings/02am/pdf/8321-71068.pdf
https://www.bmglabtech.com/en/blog/optical-density-for-absorbance-assays/
This is your answer to the fact that Kellerman got a prolonged look at JFK's wounds and said the rear head entry wound was at the EOP? No one said Kellerman was an "expert." You don't have to be an expert to see that a small wound is near the hairline and the EOP and not a whopping 4 inches higher in the cowlick.
Wrong again. Hodges did confirm the EOP site. You'd better go back and read what he said on pp. 2-3. He specifically mentioned "a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region" (p. 3), and he specified that the "x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput" (p. 3). You even quoted these statements, but obviously did not understand them.
The debunked cowlick site was claimed to be above the occiput and in the right parietal bone, about 0.4 cm to the right of the sagittal suture and 0.5 cm above the lambda. The EOP site is in the righthand side of the occiput, i.e., "the right occiput."
I never said he confirmed cerebellar damage. He neither confirmed nor denied cerebellar damage, i.e., damage to the cerebellum. He made no comment either way on it.
You keep dancing around the core problems:
(1) The autopsy photos, the autopsy doctors, several experts, and several eyewitnesses support the EOP site, but the brain photos do not show the damage that would have been done by the EOP-site bullet. Any bullet entering at the EOP site would have torn through the cerebellum, but the brain photos show a virtually intact cerebellum.
(2) We know that pieces of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, and several witnesses reported that a substantial portion of the brain was blown away, and, crucially, the skull x-rays show a large amount of the right brain missing, but the brain photos show a brain that is missing "less than" 1-2 ounces of brain tissue.
Another strong line of evidence that proves that the autopsy photos are not of JFK's brain is the evidence that there were two supplemental brain exams, that Finck was excluded from the first brain exam, that the official autopsy photographer did not take the brain photos in evidence, and Finck's comment that the brain looked different at the brain exam he attended than it did at the autopsy. Doug Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for military records at the time, compiled this evidence in a 32-page ARRB memo, a memo that the Washington Post found convincing:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_BrainExams.pdf
Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, noted that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex at the location of the alleged cowlick entry wound:
There is no entrance wound where the HSCA locates it. The autopsy photographs show intact cerebral cortex at the point that the HSCA claims is an entrance wound. This is confirmed by correct interpretation of the X-rays. (https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
Riley also noted that there is no connection between the high fragment trail and the cavitation wound, which is well below that trail, and that the cavitation wound is consistent with the EOP entry site:
The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. . . .
The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. . . .
There are clear signs of an entrance wound where it was described by the prosectors. (https://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
Simply put, the autopsy materials show two separate, unconnected wound paths through JFK's head, one near the top of the skull (the high fragment trail) and the other several inches lower, proving beyond any doubt that two bullets hit the head. This is one of the reasons the autopsy doctors said nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report or in their testimony. The other reason was that they knew there was no rear entry wound that corresponded with the high fragment trail.
It is obvious you have never read all the information you have posted.
Dr Mantik is using experimental data. Hardly a science.
Dr. Mantik: Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical], David Mantik and Doug Horne’s status within the so-called research community are of such a proportion that I find it necessary to note the numerous mistakes in their collected works
Dr. Mantik believes the X Ray photos are faked. All of his conclusions are based on what he believes are fake X Rays? Is that the science you are referring to?
------------------
Lets look back:
“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”
Sill interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as an example. 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."
--------------
Occipital Region vs EOP
The occipital region refers to the area of the skull at the back of the head, encompassing the occipital bone and its associated structures. The EOP Site is a specific location within the occipital region, characterized by the external occipital protuberance, which is a bony projection on the external surface of the occipital bone. The EOP is significant for its role in the attachment of muscles and ligaments, as well as its potential clinical relevance in various medical fields. Not hardly the same reference point.
---------------
SA Kellerman? I guess he does have an S and an A before his name which in your mind would make him an expert. Why did the HSCA and the WC bother with all the doctors when they could have just relied on SA Kellerman?
-
It is obvious you have never read all the information you have posted.
Dr Mantik is using experimental data. Hardly a science.
Dr. Mantik: Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical], David Mantik and Doug Horne’s status within the so-called research community are of such a proportion that I find it necessary to note the numerous mistakes in their collected works
Dr. Mantik believes the X Ray photos are faked. All of his conclusions are based on what he believes are fake X Rays? Is that the science you are referring to?
------------------
Lets look back:
“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”
Sill interesting, you would choose Dr Hodges as an example. 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."
--------------
Occipital Region vs EOP
The occipital region refers to the area of the skull at the back of the head, encompassing the occipital bone and its associated structures. The EOP Site is a specific location within the occipital region, characterized by the external occipital protuberance, which is a bony projection on the external surface of the occipital bone. The EOP is significant for its role in the attachment of muscles and ligaments, as well as its potential clinical relevance in various medical fields. Not hardly the same reference point.
---------------
SA Kellerman? I guess he does have an S and an A before his name which in your mind would make him an expert. Why did the HSCA and the WC bother with all the doctors when they could have just relied on SA Kellerman?
Oh my goodness. So you're doubling down on your clownish claims and denials about the science of OD measurement. You keep ignoring the fact that we're talking about three sets of OD measurements: those done by Dr. Mantik (reviewed and approved by Dr. Arthur G. Haus and by Dr. Greg Henkelmann), those done by Dr. Chesser, and those done by Dr. DeSalles.
I notice you said nothing about the links I provided on the science of OD measurement.
I see you're also once again refusing to acknowledge the clear meaning of Hodges' statements. Do you just not understand what you're reading? Is that it?
Hodges said the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, and he referenced the autopsy report when he did so. The autopsy report says the entry wound was in the occiput, that it was slightly above and 2.5 to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). Yet, you keep pretending that Hodges rejected the autopsy report's location for the wound. You either don't understand what you're reading or you're trying to mislead readers.
Let's read again what Hodges said and see that he clearly referenced and endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound:
Although not readily detected on the x-rays, 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 color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.
The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput. . . . (pp. 2-3)
What do you not understand here? Hodges was clearly, unmistakably discussing and endorsing the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry site. The debunked cowlick entry site is not even in any part of the occipital bone--it is supposedly in the parietal bone, about 1.7 above the lambda, a whopping 4 inches higher than where the autopsy doctors said it was. Go Google a basic skull diagram to understand the difference between a wound in the occipital bone and a wound in the parietal bone.
If the EOP site is correct, which it surely is, then the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.
Again, you might read what your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, says about why the EOP site is correct and why the cowlick site is bogus (The JFK Myths, pp. 182-188).
I notice you said nothing about the two separate, unconnected wound paths through JFK's skull discussed by Dr. Joseph Riley, who was a neuroanatomist.
-
So what about those Z film frames following Z313 that look like (to me at least ) that there’s a whole lot of missing brain as the whole front part of JFKs head is gone.?
-
So what about those Z film frames following Z313 that look like (to me at least ) that there’s a whole lot of missing brain as the whole front part of JFKs head is gone.?
What would you like to know?
-
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...
Another surreal, Flat-Earther-like comment. Your answer to the hard scientific evidence of forgery in the autopsy materials resembles the zany denials we get from 9/11 Truthers and Flat Earthers when they are confronted with scientific evidence that refutes their theories. You and your fellow WC true believers are decades behind the information curve because your heads are buried in the sand when it comes to the new disclosures and new scientific findings that refute your theory.
Let's start with the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray. For decades, every expert who reviewed the skull x-rays concluded it was a bullet fragment, but now even Pat Speer and Larry Sturdivan acknowledge that it cannot be a bullet fragment but must be some kind of "artifact." Speer and Sturdivan can't bring themselves to accept the fact that multiple OD measurements have proved the object is not metallic and the fact that Dr. Mantik has even duplicated how the object's image was placed on the AP x-ray, but they acknowledge that the object cannot be a bullet fragment.
Just look at your side's pitiful, grasping, strained attempts in this thread to explain the fact that the skull x-rays show far more missing brain than the brain photos show.
No, Jack Nessan, when Dr. Hodges said that "a goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing," his use of the word "apparently" does not mean he was guessing. When used in a medical-scientific context, "apparently" is the same as saying "this is what it shows" or "as observed" or "this is how it appears."
And only in a brainwashed lone-gunman theorist's mind could believe that "a goodly portion of the right brain" even remotely refers to less than 1-2 ounces of brain tissue. The term "goodly" is a common term with a known, long-established definition:
The Collins Dictionary:
"Goodly": A goodly amount or part of something is a fairly large amount or part of it, often more than was expected.
The Cambridge Dictionary:
"Goodly": GREATER THAN THE AVERAGE SIZE OR AMOUNT
Example: A goodly portion of the objects on show are real rarities.
Google AI overview defines "a goodly portion" as follows:
"A goodly portion" means a large, substantial amount or part of something, often more than average or expected. Usage examples include "a goodly portion of his time was spent volunteering" or "a goodly portion of the land is valuable property". Synonyms include substantial, considerable, large, and significant.
So when Dr. Hodges said the x-rays show "a goodly portion" of the right brain missing, he was saying the exact same thing as saying the x-rays show "a substantial portion" or "a large portion" or "a significant portion" of the right brain to be missing.
Gee, isn't it the most amazing coincidence that Dr. Humes said that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away, that OD measurements of the skull x-rays prove they show only about 30% of the right brain to be present, that the 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 1/3 to 2/3 of its tissue, and that we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces? Gee, how about that?!
Finally, it bears repeating that numerous experts have found evidence of alteration and forgery in the autopsy materials, including Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Doug DeSalles, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Robert Livingston, and RN Kathy Cunningham, among others, in addition to Dr. Mantik.
For a better understanding of the evidence of alteration and forgery in the autopsy photos and x-rays, I recommend Dr. Michael Chesser's presentation "The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of the Brain Photographs," given at South Texas College of Law in Houston in 2017. Dr. Chesser is a practicing, board-certified neurologist with decades of experience in the medical field. Here's a link to his presentation:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf
-
Oh my goodness. So you're doubling down on your clownish claims and denials about the science of OD measurement. You keep ignoring the fact that we're talking about three sets of OD measurements: those done by Dr. Mantik (reviewed and approved by Dr. Arthur G. Haus and by Dr. Greg Henkelmann), those done by Dr. Chesser, and those done by Dr. DeSalles.
I notice you said nothing about the links I provided on the science of OD measurement.
I see you're also once again refusing to acknowledge the clear meaning of Hodges' statements. Do you just not understand what you're reading? Is that it?
Hodges said the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, and he referenced the autopsy report when he did so. The autopsy report says the entry wound was in the occiput, that it was slightly above and 2.5 to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). Yet, you keep pretending that Hodges rejected the autopsy report's location for the wound. You either don't understand what you're reading or you're trying to mislead readers.
Let's read again what Hodges said and see that he clearly referenced and endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound:
Although not readily detected on the x-rays, 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 color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.
The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput. . . . (pp. 2-3)
What do you not understand here? Hodges was clearly, unmistakably discussing and endorsing the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry site. The debunked cowlick entry site is not even in any part of the occipital bone--it is supposedly in the parietal bone, about 1.7 above the lambda, a whopping 4 inches higher than where the autopsy doctors said it was. Go Google a basic skull diagram to understand the difference between a wound in the occipital bone and a wound in the parietal bone.
If the EOP site is correct, which it surely is, then the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.
Again, you might read what your side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, says about why the EOP site is correct and why the cowlick site is bogus (The JFK Myths, pp. 182-188).
I notice you said nothing about the two separate, unconnected wound paths through JFK's skull discussed by Dr. Joseph Riley, who was a neuroanatomist.
Oh my goodness. So you're doubling down on your clownish claims and denials about the science of OD measurement. You keep ignoring the fact that we're talking about three sets of OD measurements: those done by Dr. Mantik (reviewed and approved by Dr. Arthur G. Haus and by Dr. Greg Henkelmann), those done by Dr. Chesser, and those done by Dr. DeSalles.
Dr Mantik said they were experimental. When did experimental become hard science?
I notice you said nothing about the links I provided on the science of OD measurement.
Dr Mantik stated his work was just experimental and the photos were faked. Do you not grasp that. You read them first, that will make it easier to then help you understand what you have read. You seem to struggle with that.
I noticed you never stated that you read them. Like with Dr Hodges statement, you will just deny what is written in the links.
Have you read them?
I see you're also once again refusing to acknowledge the clear meaning of Hodges' statements. Do you just not understand what you're reading? Is that it?
What Is understood is you obviously never read what he stated and it is not what you have been promoting.
How could he have been clearer. The damaged occipital region is not the cerebellum.
Hodges said the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, and he referenced the autopsy report when he did so. The autopsy report says the entry wound was in the occiput, that it was slightly above and 2.5 to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). Yet, you keep pretending that Hodges rejected the autopsy report's location for the wound. You either don't understand what you're reading or you're trying to mislead readers.
No. Remember, the original post came from the rebuttal to Pat Speer. Something you obviously never read but were telling everyone else to read.
Dr Hodges
"Although not readily detected on the x-rays, 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 color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region. "
The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput. . . . (pp. 2-3)
What do you not understand here? Hodges was clearly, unmistakably discussing and endorsing the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry site. The debunked cowlick entry site is not even in any part of the occipital bone--it is supposedly in the parietal bone, about 1.7 above the lambda, a whopping 4 inches higher than where the autopsy doctors said it was. Go Google a basic skull diagram to understand the difference between a wound in the occipital bone and a wound in the parietal bone.
No one but you are always talking about the cowlick site. Pretend all you want but Dr Hodges did not state what you wanted him to.
If the EOP site is correct, which it surely is, then the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.
No. They stated where the wound was located and what aspects of the brain were affected. You want the cerebellum to be where the bullet traveled, and according to your Dr Hodges it did not. Why trot Dr Hodges out as an expert and then trash what he stated?
Here is the location of the bullet’s path. “a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.” Where is the reference to the cerebellum? The cerebellum is below the occipital region.
Where are the two shots from the front you have stated took place?
-
Oh my goodness. So you're doubling down on your clownish claims and denials about the science of OD measurement. You keep ignoring the fact that we're talking about three sets of OD measurements: those done by Dr. Mantik (reviewed and approved by Dr. Arthur G. Haus and by Dr. Greg Henkelmann), those done by Dr. Chesser, and those done by Dr. DeSalles.
Dr Mantik said they were experimental. When did experimental become hard science?
Dr Mantik stated his work was just experimental. Do you not grasp that.
The primary meaning of "experimental" in a scientific context is that it "refers to things that are derived from or based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone." You're using one of the secondary definitions of "experimental," i.e., tentative or provisional, but that is not how Dr. Mantik was using the term.
To further quote Google AI on the definitions of "experimental":
"Experimental" describes something that is new, based on a test or trial, or uses new methods to discover something new. It can also refer to something tentative, provisional, or done for the purpose of testing, such as an experimental drug, an experimental artist, or an experimental rule.
Given the apparently limited nature of your reading, even if you had read Dr. Mantik's research, I'm not sure you would have realized that he is not using the term "experimental" to mean tentative or provisional but is using it to refer to things (OD measurements) that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone."
Pat Speer made the same blunder. You got this blunder from his amateurish attack on Dr. Mantik's research. One would hope this would cause to you to rethink your reliance on a college dropout when it comes to medical-scientific issues that are far beyond his education and background.
I notice you said nothing about the links I provided on the science of OD measurement.
I noticed you never stated that you read them. Like with Dr Hodges statement, you will just deny what is written in the links. Have you read them?
This sounds like juvenile posturing. Yes, I have read them. I've also read many other articles on the science of OD measurement. OD measurements are used in a variety of disciplines. Radiation oncologists use them to form some of their diagnoses. Microbiologists use OD measurements to estimate cell concentration and monitor growth by measuring how much light is scattered or absorbed by a suspension. Optics producers use OD measurements to design lenses and other optical instruments.
I see you're also once again refusing to acknowledge the clear meaning of Hodges' statements. Do you just not understand what you're reading? Is that it?
What Is understood is you obviously never read what he stated and it is not what you have been promoting.
You must be kidding. Dr. Hodges referenced the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound and then said, in plain English, that the wound was in the right occiput. The autopsy report says the wound was 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP, which means it was in the right occiput.
How could he have been clearer. The damaged occipital region is not the cerebellum.
Again, as I told you in my previous reply, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage. He neither confirmed nor denied it. His main job was to provide an analysis of the skull x-rays, since he was the only radiologist on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel. He focused on the damage to the skull seen in the skull x-rays and supported his observations with occasional references to the autopsy photos.
You keep dancing around the fact that Dr. Hodges said (1) that the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of the right brain to be missing, and (2) that the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, just as the autopsy report says it was.
BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:
Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. (p. 3)
No bullet that entered the debunked cowlick site and exited above the right ear could have passed through the occiput. In fact, such a bullet would have gone nowhere near the occiput. You can Google a skull diagram to confirm this fact.
Hodges said the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, and he referenced the autopsy report when he did so. The autopsy report says the entry wound was in the occiput, that it was slightly above and 2.5 to the right of the external occipital protuberance (EOP). Yet, you keep pretending that Hodges rejected the autopsy report's location for the wound. You either don't understand what you're reading or you're trying to mislead readers.
No. Remember, the original post came from the rebuttal to Pat Speer. Something you obviously never read but were telling everyone else to read.
So you think I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer?! Yeah, okay. Surely you know better.
But, just for the sake of dealing with this silliness, let's assume I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer: How does this explain the fact that Dr. Hodges undeniably endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound?
Dr Hodges:
"Although not readily detected on the x-rays, 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 color photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region."
The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput. . . . (pp. 2-3)
What do you not understand here? Hodges was clearly, unmistakably discussing and endorsing the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry site. The debunked cowlick entry site is not even in any part of the occipital bone--it is supposedly in the parietal bone, about 1.7 cm above the lambda, a whopping 4 inches higher than where the autopsy doctors said it was. Go Google a basic skull diagram to understand the difference between a wound in the occipital bone and a wound in the parietal bone.
No one but you are always talking about the cowlick site. Pretend all you want but Dr Hodges did not state what you wanted him to.
Uh, yes, he did. He said the wound was in the right occipital region, and he did so after specifically referencing the autopsy report's location for the wound, and he even noted that "many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site," i.e., the site described in the autopsy report.
And, yes, I'm talking about the cowlick site because that was the bogus site that was floated in order to avoid having to deal with the impossible trajectory of the EOP site. As early as the late 1960s, critics noted that any bullet striking the EOP site at a downward angle would have blown out a substantial part of the face, as confirmed by the WC's own wound ballistics tests. Critics also noted that the WC's own diagram showed that for the EOP-site trajectory to "work," JFK would have had to be leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck.
If the EOP site is correct, which it surely is, then the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.
No. They stated where the wound was located and what aspects of the brain were affected. You want the cerebellum to be where the bullet traveled, and according to your Dr Hodges it did not. Why trot Dr Hodges out as an expert and then trash what he stated?
Again, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage. In fact, he said nothing about brain damage except to note that the x-rays show a large part of the right brain to be missing. He did not discuss which parts of the brain were damaged. His focus was on the damage to the skull as seen in the skull x-rays, since he was the only radiologist on the RC's medical panel.
Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.
I should add that a bullet hitting the EOP at a downward angle would have also torn through the right occipital lobe, but the brain photos show no damage to the right occipital lobe, as the HSCA FPP pointed out to the autopsy doctors to try to get them to repudiate the EOP site.
Here is the location of the bullet’s path. “a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.” Where is the reference to the cerebellum? The cerebellum is below the occipital region.
How many times are you going to repeat this strawman argument? Again, I never said Hodges mentioned damage to the cerebellum. You've just made this up to serve as a strawman because you can't explain how the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos can both be correct.
The HSCA FPP hammered the autopsy doctors with the argument that if the EOP site was correct, the autopsy brain photos would show substantial damage to the cerebellum, but the brain photos show no pre-mortem cerebellar damage--they don't even show any bleeding in the cerebellum. So either the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound is wrong or the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. It's that simple.
Where are the two shots from the front you have stated took place?
I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about the basics of the multiple-gunmen case.
-
The primary meaning of "experimental" in a scientific context is that it "refers to things that are derived from or based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone." You're using one of the secondary definitions of "experimental," i.e., tentative or provisional, but that is not how Dr. Mantik was using the term.
To further quote Google AI on the definitions of "experimental":
"Experimental" describes something that is new, based on a test or trial, or uses new methods to discover something new. It can also refer to something tentative, provisional, or done for the purpose of testing, such as an experimental drug, an experimental artist, or an experimental rule.
Given the apparently limited nature of your reading, even if you had read Dr. Mantik's research, I'm not sure you would have realized that he is not using the term "experimental" to mean tentative or provisional but is using it to refer to things (OD measurements) that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone."
Pat Speer made the same blunder. You got this blunder from his amateurish attack on Dr. Mantik's research. One would hope this would cause to you to rethink your reliance on a college dropout when it comes to medical-scientific issues that are far beyond his education and background.
This sounds like juvenile posturing. Yes, I have read them. I've also read many other articles on the science of OD measurement. OD measurements are used in a variety of disciplines. Radiation oncologists use them to form some of their diagnoses. Microbiologists use OD measurements to estimate cell concentration and monitor growth by measuring how much light is scattered or absorbed by a suspension. Optics producers use OD measurements to design lenses and other optical instruments.
You must be kidding. Dr. Hodges referenced the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound and then said, in plain English, that the wound was in the right occiput. The autopsy report says the wound was 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP, which means it was in the right occiput.
Again, as I told you in my previous reply, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage. He neither confirmed nor denied it. His main job was to provide an analysis of the skull x-rays, since he was the only radiologist on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel. He focused on the damage to the skull seen in the skull x-rays and supported his observations with occasional references to the autopsy photos.
You keep dancing around the fact that Dr. Hodges said (1) that the skull x-rays show a substantial amount of the right brain to be missing, and (2) that the rear head entry wound was in the right occiput, just as the autopsy report says it was.
BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:
Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. (p. 3)
No bullet that entered the debunked cowlick site and exited above the right ear could have passed through the occiput. In fact, such as bullet would have gone nowhere near the occiput. You can Google a skull diagram to confirm this fact.
So you think I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer?! Yeah, okay. Surely you know better.
But, just for the sake of dealing with this silliness, let's assume I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer: How does this explain the fact that Dr. Hodges undeniably endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound?
Uh, yes, he did. He said the wound was in the right occipital region, and he did so after specifically referencing the autopsy report's location for the wound, and he even noted that "many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site," i.e., the site described in the autopsy report.
And, yes, I'm talking about the cowlick site because that was the bogus site that was floated in order to avoid having to deal with the impossible trajectory of the EOP site. As early as the late 1960s, critics noted that any bullet striking the EOP site at a downward angle would have blown out a substantial part of the face, as confirmed by the WC's own wound ballistics tests. Critics also noted that the WC's own diagram showed that for the EOP-site trajectory to "work," JFK would have had to be leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck.
Again, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage. In fact, he said nothing about brain damage except to note that the x-rays show a large part of the right brain to be missing. He did not discuss which parts of the brain were damaged. His focus was on the damage to the skull as seen in the skull x-rays, since he was the only radiologist on the RC's medical panel.
Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.
I should add that a bullet hitting the EOP at a downward angle would have also torn through the right occipital lobe, but the brain photos show no damage to the right occipital lobe, as the HSCA FPP pointed out to the autopsy doctors to try to get them to repudiate the EOP site.
How many times are you going to repeat this strawman argument? Again, I never said Hodges mentioned damage to the cerebellum. You've just made this up to serve as a strawman because you can't explain how the EOP site and the autopsy brain photos can both be correct.
The HSCA FPP hammered the autopsy doctors with the argument that if the EOP site was correct, the autopsy brain photos would show substantial damage to the cerebellum, but the brain photos show no pre-mortem cerebellar damage--they don't even show any bleeding in the cerebellum. So either the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound is wrong or the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. It's that simple.
I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about the basics of the multiple-gunmen case.
It can also refer to something tentative, provisional, or done for the purpose of testing
"Something tenative, provisional" is not a description of a solid scientific principle.
Now you get it. Not definitive. Where is the science?
How about do not refer to it as a science again based on what you just posted.
-------
Given the apparently limited nature of your reading, even if you had read Dr. Mantik's research, I'm not sure you would have realized that he is not using the term "experimental" to mean tentative or provisional but is using it to refer to things (OD measurements) that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone."
Nobody is in need of your childlike understanding of the word "experimental".
Dr Mantik claimed the X Ray Photos were faked based on it. He was wrong. Who else thought he was right but you.
---------
BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:
Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. (p. 3)
Dr Hodges: “and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region”
Dr Hodges' statement of the bullets path is a long way from your claim of “torn through the cerebellum”
M Griffith “which means the bullet would have torn through the cerebellum.”
-------------------
So you think I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer?! Yeah, okay. Surely you know better.
I do not think you read the rebuttal at all. You assume what they are all about. It is the only explanation for you missing so much of what was written. Why do I have to explain to you what Dr Hodges stated if you had read the link, let alone all the other things in the rebuttal that have seemed to have gone right over your head.
-------------
Again, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage.
According to your quote he did. You aren't able to understand what he stated? Then you wonder why I don't think you read your own links?
Because the bullets path was above it.
-----------------------
Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.
Nobody is ducking anything. What a load of crap. You admit it did not travel through the cerebellum. So, what is it you are prattling on about?
-----------------
How many times are you going to repeat this strawman argument?
Until you clue in.
------------------------
So either the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound is wrong or the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. It's that simple.
No. This statement is based solely on your opinion, nothing more.
-------------------
I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about the basics of the multiple-gunmen case.
How about educating me on the evidence of a third shot. To date you have not proven there even was a third shot, let alone now claiming two more shots from the front; that would be considered absolutely ridiculous.
-
Notice that lone-gunman theorists are saying nothing about the fact that bits of JFK’s brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain tissue that Jackie handed to a doctor in the Parkland emergency room.
Vincent Bugliosi was so pathologically committed to the lone-gunman theory that he did not realize the devastating, fatal nature of Dr. Baden’s admission that the brain in the autopsy brain photos is missing “less than” 1-2 ounces of its substance.
Bugliosi was so blinded by his bias that he forgot that elsewhere in his book he mentioned that Jackie Kennedy was holding “a large chunk” of JFK’s brain when she entered the Parkland Hospital emergency room and gave it to Dr. Marion T. (“Pepper”) Jenkins:
Looking shell-shocked, Mrs. Kennedy aimlessly circles the hospital gurney where technicians work feverishly on her husband’s body. Her hands are cupped in front of her, as if cradling something. As she passes Dr. Jenkins, she nudges him with her elbow and hands him what she has been nursing—a large chunk of brain tissue. Jenkins quickly gives it to a nearby nurse. (Reclaiming History, p. 182)
Dr. Jenkins himself confirmed that Jackie Kennedy handed him “a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues”:
Jacqueline Kennedy was circling the room, walking behind my back. The Secret Service could not keep her out of the room. She looked shell-shocked. As she circled and circled, I noticed that her hands were cupped in front of her, as if she were cradling something. As she passed by, she nudged me with an elbow and handed me what she had been nursing in her hands: a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues. I quickly handed it to a nurse. (Dennis Breo, “JFK’s Death, Part II,” Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, p. 2806, https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md221.pdf)
Obviously, this “large chunk” of brain tissue could not have come from the brain shown in the autopsy brain photos.
And keep in mind that bits of brain tissue from JFK’s brain also ended up on 16 surfaces, including Officer Martin’s clothes, Officer Hargis’s clothes, the follow-up car’s windshield, SS agent Kinney’s coat (he was riding in the follow-up car), the limo’s rear passenger door, the limo’s front seat, the limo’s back seat, and the drapes of JFK’s emergency room cart (in his 11/22 written statement, Dr. Jenkins said he saw “fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart”).
Is anyone going to argue that all of this splattered/dripped brain tissue and the “large chunk” of brain tissue that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins—that all of this brain tissue amounted to "less than" 1-2 ounces?
Bugliosi either was not aware of all the brain tissue that splattered or dripped from JFK’s brain, including the “large chunk” of brain tissue that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins, or he simply forgot about this damning fact in his eagerness to trumpet Baden’s statement that “less than” 1-2 ounces of brain tissue are missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos.
-
Notice that lone-gunman theorists are saying nothing about the fact that bits of JFK’s brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain tissue that Jackie handed to a doctor in the Parkland emergency room.
Vincent Bugliosi was so pathologically committed to the lone-gunman theory that he did not realize the devastating, fatal nature of Dr. Baden’s admission that the brain in the autopsy brain photos is missing “less than” 1-2 ounces of its substance.
Bugliosi was so blinded by his bias that he forgot that elsewhere in his book he mentioned that Jackie Kennedy was holding “a large chunk” of JFK’s brain when she entered the Parkland Hospital emergency room and gave it to Dr. Marion T. (“Pepper”) Jenkins:
Looking shell-shocked, Mrs. Kennedy aimlessly circles the hospital gurney where technicians work feverishly on her husband’s body. Her hands are cupped in front of her, as if cradling something. As she passes Dr. Jenkins, she nudges him with her elbow and hands him what she has been nursing—a large chunk of brain tissue. Jenkins quickly gives it to a nearby nurse. (Reclaiming History, p. 182)
Dr. Jenkins himself confirmed that Jackie Kennedy handed him “a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues”:
Jacqueline Kennedy was circling the room, walking behind my back. The Secret Service could not keep her out of the room. She looked shell-shocked. As she circled and circled, I noticed that her hands were cupped in front of her, as if she were cradling something. As she passed by, she nudged me with an elbow and handed me what she had been nursing in her hands: a large chunk of her husband’s brain tissues. I quickly handed it to a nurse. (Dennis Breo, “JFK’s Death, Part II,” Journal of the American Medical Association, May 27, 1992, p. 2806, https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md221.pdf)
Obviously, this “large chunk” of brain tissue could not have come from the brain shown in the autopsy brain photos.
And keep in mind that bits of brain tissue from JFK’s brain also ended up on 16 surfaces, including Officer Martin’s clothes, Officer Hargis’s clothes, the follow-up car’s windshield, SS agent Kinney’s coat (he was riding in the follow-up car), the limo’s rear passenger door, the limo’s front seat, the limo’s back seat, and the drapes of JFK’s emergency room cart (in his 11/22 written statement, Dr. Jenkins said he saw “fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart”).
Is anyone going to argue that all of this splattered/dripped brain tissue and the “large chunk” of brain tissue that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins—that all of this brain tissue amounted to "less than" 1-2 ounces?
Bugliosi either was not aware of all the brain tissue that splattered or dripped from JFK’s brain, including the “large chunk” of brain tissue that Jackie handed to Dr. Jenkins, or he simply forgot about this damning fact in his eagerness to trumpet Baden’s statement that “less than” 1-2 ounces of brain tissue are missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos.
-----------------
This would be a great time to show case Dr Mantik's OD measurements. Dr Mantik can use OD Measurements on the brain matter and blood cloud above JFK from the headshot in the Zapruder Film. Isn’t it your claim that it is science and works no matter what is taking place.
What brain matter was held in Jackie's hand was not part of what was blown up into the air and would have been placed back with the rest, would it not have? Dr Mantik would undoubtedly have known this, and it could be figured into his calculations because it is a science or claimed to be one.
I doubt you have read this, it is from Dr Mantik’s reply to Pat Speer’s critique, but this is where Dr Mantik went off the rails on the X Rays having been faked. Again, where is the science in this? There is no crime in not knowing something but reaching conclusions that are proven wrong then casts doubt on other aspects of the conclusions.
“The correction of my mistake came from Arthur G. Haus and colleagues at Kodak, who advised me about image crossovers (from one side of the film to the other) in these 1960s X-rays, a technical problem that was later solved. (Initially, I had only known about modern X-ray films, where the image cannot effectively cross over from one side to the other.) The presence of such crossover in these JFK X-rays, though, re-opened the door to photographic alteration in the darkroom”
Faked X Rays instead of just admit he was mistaken.
-
It can also refer to something tentative, provisional, or done for the purpose of testing
"Something tenative, provisional" is not a description of a solid scientific principle. Now you get it. Not definitive. Where is the science?
Your comment is either a display or raw ignorance or naked dissembling. Let's read what Dr. Mantik says again on this point, and notice that he specifically contrasts "experimental" with "theoretical" regarding the OD data:
As if wearing blinders, Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical. ("Speer Critique," p. 12, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-autopsy-x-rays-david-mantik-vs-pat-speer)
Do you really not have the intelligence and education to see that Dr. Mantik is using the primary scientific definition of "experimental" and is referring to things that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone"? Really? Are you seriously that uneducated and confused?
How about do not refer to it as a science again based on what you just posted.
How about you stop displaying such raw ignorance and stop comically denying that we're talking about hard scientific evidence from an established, recognized science? Let's read again what a real medical expert, board-certified radiation oncologist Dr. Greg Henkelmann, says about Dr. Mantik's OD measurements:
Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)
Compare this to your comical claims that "No one but Mantik believes OD has any validity" and that "OD is not a science."
If you'd like to verify Dr. Henkelmann's credentials, here are some links about him:
https://health.usnews.com/doctors/gregory-henkelmann-562388
https://maryhttps://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.htmlorg/blog/3-factors-you-should-consider-when-choosing-cancer-care-providers/
https://www.womans.org/findadoctor/gregory-c-henkelmann
Given the apparently limited nature of your reading, even if you had read Dr. Mantik's research, I'm not sure you would have realized that he is not using the term "experimental" to mean tentative or provisional but is using it to refer to things (OD measurements) that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone."
Nobody is in need of your childlike understanding of the word "experimental."
You're the one using the grade-school definition of "experimental" and who keeps denying that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You have revealed yourself to be little more than an uneducated troll and a fringe lone-gunman theorist whose zany version of the shooting is rejected even by most of your fellow lone-gunman theorists.
Dr Mantik claimed the X Ray Photos were faked based on it. He was wrong. Who else thought he was right but you.
Who else thinks he's right? Here's a partial list:
-- Dr. Greg Henkelmann, radiation oncologist.
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles, MD.
-- Dr. Michael Chesser, neurologist.
-- Dr. Arthur Haus, former chief of medical science at Kodak.
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, board-certified ophthalmologist and one of the few doctors given permission to view the autopsy materials at the National Archives
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht, forensic pathologist and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
-- Dr. Robert Livingston, Nobel Prize-winning scientist, a former director of two NIH institutes, a former scientific director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the first-ever department of neuroscience at UCSD.
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw, former chief of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.
-- Dr. John Costella, a professor of physics at the University of Melbourne, and the author of four articles on physics published in the American Journal of Physics.
BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:
"Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum." (p. 3)
Dr Hodges: “and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region”
Dr Hodges' statement of the bullets path is a long way from your claim of “torn through the cerebellum”:
M Griffith “which means the bullet would have torn through the cerebellum.”
LOL! I mean, this is just hilarious. You are either aberrantly dissembling or are proving you lack the education and capacity to understand what you're reading.
Let's cut through your evasions and blunderings by having you answer one simple question: How could a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window have entered 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP without tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe?
Before you humiliate and embarrass yourself even further, I'll do you a favor and remind you that the HSCA's forensic experts went to great lengths to point out that if the EOP entry site was correct, the bullet could not possibly have avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. This was the main argument they used to try to get the autopsy doctors to repudiate the EOP site. See especially the lengthy exchange between Dr. Finck and FPP member Dr. Loquvam.
Again, this is so simple: If a bullet fired from the sniper's nest hit the skull at the EOP site, that bullet could not have avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. Ah, but here's the problem for you guys: the autopsy brain photos show no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.
So you think I have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer?! Yeah, okay. Surely you know better.
I do not think you read the rebuttal at all. You assume what they are all about. It is the only explanation for you missing so much of what was written.
This is not only juvenile and hilarious, but a little weird. You clearly either have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer or you lack the capacity to understand it.
You keep making the odd complaint that "Mantik’s whole response to Speer was an attempt to vindicate his use of OD as a tool." Umm, well, yes, Dr. Mantik spends a lot of time in his rebuttal on his OD measurements, because he's answering Speer's bogus, amateurish claims about his OD measurements. Dr. Mantik also spends a lot of time in his rebuttal dealing with Speer's blundering claims about the skull x-rays, the impossible white patch, and the 6.5 mm object.
Why do I have to explain to you what Dr Hodges stated if you had read the link, let alone all the other things in the rebuttal that have seemed to have gone right over your head.
Uh-huh. More abject comedy. You've "explained" nothing to me about what Dr. Hodges said. I've been the one doing all the explaining, because you can't seem to grasp, or don't want to acknowledge, Dr. Hodges' plain-English statements regarding the rear head entry point and the amount of missing brain.
Again, Dr. Hodges did not address the issue of cerebellar damage.
According to your quote he did. You aren't able to understand what he stated?
Huh? Just Huh? Is English your second language? Nothing in the quotes from Dr. Hodges' report says, or even implies, that he mentioned or addressed cerebellar damage. If you would bother to read his report, you would see that he said nothing about any damage to the cerebellum.
This whole discussion is just ridiculous. You keep dancing around the core issues by going off on irrelevant tangents and pretending you can't understand plain English.
Then you wonder why I don't think you read your own links?
The only thing I wonder is how anyone could get on a public forum and make the kinds of bizarre, vacuous statements you are making.
Because the bullets path was above it [the cerebellum].
Oh my goodness. You have no business even talking about this stuff. No, the bullet's path was not above the cerebellum. Even the autopsy doctors did not deny that an EOP-site bullet would have had to tear through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. You haven't even read the autopsy doctors' HSCA testimony or the HSCA FPP's report, have you?
Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.
Nobody is ducking anything. What a load of crap.
You just now ducked again. You just now, once again, ducked the fact that a bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.
You admit it did not travel through the cerebellum.
So English really is your second language, or perhaps your third? How in the world could you interpret my statements as an admission that the bullet "did not travel through the cerebellum"? How? Are you actually that incapable of grasping plain English and basic logic?
One of my key points is that the brain photos are obviously fraudulent because they show no damage to the cerebellum, that since the EOP site is correct the brain photos cannot show JFK's brain because they show an intact cerebellum.
But you keep ducking and dodging this point by refusing to explain how the brain photos could be of JFK's brain when they show a brain that's missing less than 1-2 ounces of its tissue and that has no damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.
How many times are you going to repeat this strawman argument?
Until you clue in.
I have clued in, but you are clueless (or else you don't mind embarrassing yourself by pretending not to understand plain English). It is funny that you really don't seem to grasp how badly you are discrediting yourself with this nonsense.
So either the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound is wrong or the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. It's that simple.
No. This statement is based solely on your opinion, nothing more.
Umm, no, the HSCA FPP's main argument against the EOP site was that it could not be correct because the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.
It is impressive and revealing that in spite of having this argument pressed against them repeatedly by eight of the nine forensic pathologists on the FPP, Finck and Boswell refused to repudiate the EOP site and insisted it was correct, and that Humes only repudiated the EOP site with great reluctance at the very end (and then retracted his repudiation and again argued for the EOP site when interviewed by JAMA in 1992).
I can't wait to see what strained, hilarious arguments you're going to make to try to explain the fact that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces and that Jackie handed Dr. Jenkins "a large chunk" of JFKs brain tissue in the Parkland ER.
I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about the basics of the multiple-gunmen case.
How about educating me on the evidence of a third shot. To date you have not proven there even was a third shot, let alone now claiming two more shots from the front; that would be considered absolutely ridiculous.
How about educating you "on the evidence of a third shot"?! Well, your fellow lone-gunman theorists have already done that, but you've refused to acknowledge the evidence. You continue to cling to your ludicrous fringe theory that only two shots were fired during the assassination.
But, hey, you can take comfort in the fact that your zany theory has been endorsed by a disgraced dirty cop who admitted on tape that he had planted evidence to frame minorities, who boasted on tape about police brutality against blacks, and who was convicted of perjury, Mark Fuhrman. Congratulations!
-
Who else thinks he's right? Here's a partial list:
-- Dr. Greg Henkelmann, radiation oncologist.
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles, MD.
-- Dr. Michael Chesser, neurologist.
-- Dr. Arthur Haus, former chief of medical science at Kodak.
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, board-certified ophthalmologist and one of the few doctors given permission to view the autopsy materials at the National Archives
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht, forensic pathologist and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
-- Dr. Robert Livingston, Nobel Prize-winning scientist, a former director of two NIH institutes, a former scientific director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the first-ever department of neuroscience at UCSD.
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw, former chief of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.
-- Dr. John Costella, a professor of physics at the University of Melbourne, and the author of four articles on physics published in the American Journal of Physics.
Just when I think Michael T. Griffith can't make me laugh any harder, he trots out John Costella to bolster David Mantik's ridiculous fake x-ray claims. Yes, the same John Costella who said he and Jack White were being followed and monitored while visiting Dealey Plaza. The same monitors that turned out to be sprinklers. These are the "experts" on whom Griffith relies.
Separately, please produce a source backing up your statement that Dr. Cyril Wecht believes the JFK autopsy x-rays are fake.
-
Your comment is either a display or raw ignorance or naked dissembling. Let's read what Dr. Mantik says again on this point, and notice that he specifically contrasts "experimental" with "theoretical" regarding the OD data:
As if wearing blinders, Speer fails to recognize that my OD data are actually experimental, not theoretical. ("Speer Critique," p. 12, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-autopsy-x-rays-david-mantik-vs-pat-speer)
Do you really not have the intelligence and education to see that Dr. Mantik is using the primary scientific definition of "experimental" and is referring to things that are "based on experience and observation, rather than on theory alone"? Really? Are you seriously that uneducated and confused?
How about you stop displaying such raw ignorance and stop comically denying that we're talking about hard scientific evidence from an established, recognized science? Let's read again what a real medical expert, board-certified radiation oncologist Dr. Greg Henkelmann, says about Dr. Mantik's OD measurements:
Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. Unlike other evidence, optical density data are as “theory free” as possible, as this data deals only with physical measurements. To reject alteration of the JFK skull X-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology. Dr. Mantik has a PhD in physics and has practiced radiation oncology for nearly 40 years; he is thus eminently qualified in both physics and radiology. (Introduction to David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. i)
Compare this to your comical claims that "No one but Mantik believes OD has any validity" and that "OD is not a science."
If you'd like to verify Dr. Henkelmann's credentials, here are some links about him:
https://health.usnews.com/doctors/gregory-henkelmann-562388
https://maryhttps://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2006.0.htmlorg/blog/3-factors-you-should-consider-when-choosing-cancer-care-providers/
https://www.womans.org/findadoctor/gregory-c-henkelmann
You're the one using the grade-school definition of "experimental" and who keeps denying that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You have revealed yourself to be little more than an uneducated troll and a fringe lone-gunman theorist whose zany version of the shooting is rejected even by most of your fellow lone-gunman theorists.
Who else thinks he's right? Here's a partial list:
-- Dr. Greg Henkelmann, radiation oncologist.
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles, MD.
-- Dr. Michael Chesser, neurologist.
-- Dr. Arthur Haus, former chief of medical science at Kodak.
-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, board-certified ophthalmologist and one of the few doctors given permission to view the autopsy materials at the National Archives
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht, forensic pathologist and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
-- Dr. Robert Livingston, Nobel Prize-winning scientist, a former director of two NIH institutes, a former scientific director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the first-ever department of neuroscience at UCSD.
-- Dr. Charles Crenshaw, former chief of surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.
-- Dr. John Costella, a professor of physics at the University of Melbourne, and the author of four articles on physics published in the American Journal of Physics.
LOL! I mean, this is just hilarious. You are either aberrantly dissembling or are proving you lack the education and capacity to understand what you're reading.
Let's cut through your evasions and blunderings by having you answer one simple question: How could a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window have entered 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP without tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe?
Before you humiliate and embarrass yourself even further, I'll do you a favor and remind you that the HSCA's forensic experts went to great lengths to point out that if the EOP entry site was correct, the bullet could not possibly have avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. This was the main argument they used to try to get the autopsy doctors to repudiate the EOP site. See especially the lengthy exchange between Dr. Finck and FPP member Dr. Loquvam.
Again, this is so simple: If a bullet fired from the sniper's nest hit the skull at the EOP site, that bullet could not have avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. Ah, but here's the problem for you guys: the autopsy brain photos show no pre-mortem damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.
This is not only juvenile and hilarious, but a little weird. You clearly either have not read Dr. Mantik's rebuttal to Speer or you lack the capacity to understand it.
You keep making the odd complaint that "Mantik’s whole response to Speer was an attempt to vindicate his use of OD as a tool." Umm, well, yes, Dr. Mantik spends a lot of time in his rebuttal on his OD measurements, because he's answering Speer's bogus, amateurish claims about his OD measurements. Dr. Mantik also spends a lot of time in his rebuttal dealing with Speer's blundering claims about the skull x-rays, the impossible white patch, and the 6.5 mm object.
Uh-huh. More abject comedy. You've "explained" nothing to me about what Dr. Hodges said. I've been the one doing all the explaining, because you can't seem to grasp, or don't want to acknowledge, Dr. Hodges' plain-English statements regarding the rear head entry point and the amount of missing brain.
Huh? Just Huh? Is English your second language? Nothing in the quotes from Dr. Hodges' report says, or even implies, that he mentioned or addressed cerebellar damage. If you would bother to read his report, you would see that he said nothing about any damage to the cerebellum.
This whole discussion is just ridiculous. You keep dancing around the core issues by going off on irrelevant tangents and pretending you can't understand plain English.
The only thing I wonder is how anyone could get on a public forum and make the kinds of bizarre, vacuous statements you are making.
Oh my goodness. You have no business even talking about this stuff. No, the bullet's path was not above the cerebellum. Even the autopsy doctors did not deny that an EOP-site bullet would have had to tear through the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe. You haven't even read the autopsy doctors' HSCA testimony or the HSCA FPP's report, have you?
You just now ducked again. You just now, once again, ducked the fact that a bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.
So English really is your second language, or perhaps your third? How in the world could you interpret my statements as an admission that the bullet "did not travel through the cerebellum"? How? Are you actually that incapable of grasping plain English and basic logic?
One of my key points is that the brain photos are obviously fraudulent because they show no damage to the cerebellum, that since the EOP site is correct the brain photos cannot show JFK's brain because they show an intact cerebellum.
But you keep ducking and dodging this point by refusing to explain how the brain photos could be of JFK's brain when they show a brain that's missing less than 1-2 ounces of its tissue and that has no damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.
I have clued in, but you are clueless (or else you don't mind embarrassing yourself by pretending not to understand plain English). It is funny that you really don't seem to grasp how badly you are discrediting yourself with this nonsense.
Umm, no, the HSCA FPP's main argument against the EOP site was that it could not be correct because the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and the right occipital lobe.
It is impressive and revealing that in spite of having this argument pressed against them repeatedly by eight of the nine forensic pathologists on the FPP, Finck and Boswell refused to repudiate the EOP site and insisted it was correct, and that Humes only repudiated the EOP site with great reluctance at the very end (and then retracted his repudiation and again argued for the EOP site when interviewed by JAMA in 1992).
I can't wait to see what strained, hilarious arguments you're going to make to try to explain the fact that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces and that Jackie handed Dr. Jenkins "a large chunk" of JFKs brain tissue in the Parkland ER.
How about educating you "on the evidence of a third shot"?! Well, your fellow lone-gunman theorists have already done that, but you've refused to acknowledge the evidence. You continue to cling to your ludicrous fringe theory that only two shots were fired during the assassination.
But, hey, you can take comfort in the fact that your zany theory has been endorsed by a disgraced dirty cop who admitted on tape that he had planted evidence to frame minorities, who boasted on tape about police brutality against blacks, and who was convicted of perjury, Mark Fuhrman. Congratulations!
What exactly is your point in this high pitched squeal? It has already been proven by your own expert that this whole story is nonsense. Dr Hodges clearly states the bullet entered the back of JFK’s head, tore through his brain and exited the side of his head. What truly is the point of this whole exercise? Regurgitating the same unproven nonsense is pointless. You seem to be fixated on the level of damage as proof of something. What exactly, please in ten words or less, is it proof of?
What makes this so strange is JFK really was shot in the head from behind as confirmed by your leading expert Dr Hodges. How in any way does making this ridiculous claim alter that fact.
There is nothing new in this entire post that has not been answered in previous replies by your experts. Only you seem to think it is a confusing issue. Let's go over it one more time. The bullet struck JFK in the back of the head, proceeded through his brain after fragmenting, and exited the side the right of his head. Where is the confusion?
The Xray and brain photos are authentic; you have not cast any doubt on that fact all. They have been deemed authentic by your experts.
M Griffith:
“How does this explain the fact that Dr. Hodges undeniably endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound?”
MGiffith:
“Only a drawing of one of the autopsy brain photos has been released, but several experts have been allowed to view all the brain photos at the National Archives. Baden got to view them at length as part of the HSCA FPP's review of the medical evidence. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have also seen all the brain photos. They have confirmed Baden's statement that the brain photos show only a very small amount of missing brain tissue, no more than 2 ounces.”
Hodges refuted the findings of the Clark Panel, noting instead that
"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."
---------------------------------
Dr hodges stated the bullet went through the occipit. The cerebellum lies below the occipit. Maybe you have different brain diagrams.
MGriffith:
“BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the bullet passed through the occiput:”
“Small bullet fragments, 1 mm or less, abraided from the main bullet by its passage through the occiput, are distributed along the periphery of its trajectory through the right cerebrum. (p. 3)”
Dr Hodges: “and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region”
Dr Hodges, your expert stated right occipital region vs your cerebellum, which lies below it.
Dr Hodges' statement of the bullets path is a long way from your claim of “torn through the cerebellum”
M Griffith:
“How does this explain the fact that Dr. Hodges undeniably endorsed the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound?”
------------------
No answer?
This would be a great time to show case OD measurements. Dr Mantik can use OD Measurements on the brain matter and blood cloud above JFK from the headshot in the Zapruder Film. Isn’t it your claim that it is science and works no matter what is taking place.
What brain matter was held in Jackie's hand was not part of what was blown up into the air and would have been placed back with the rest, would it not have? Dr Mantik would undoubtedly have known this, and it could be figured into his calculations because it is a science.
I doubt you have read this, it is from Dr Mantik’s reply to Pat Speer’s critique, but this is where Dr Mantik went off the rails on the X Rays having been faked. Again, where is the science in this?
“The correction of my mistake came from Arthur G. Haus and colleagues at Kodak, who advised me about image crossovers (from one side of the film to the other) in these 1960s X-rays, a technical problem that was later solved. (Initially, I had only known about modern X-ray films, where the image cannot effectively cross over from one side to the other.) The presence of such crossover in these JFK X-rays, though, re-opened the door to photographic alteration in the darkroom”
------------
If you can prove there were more than two shots, especially after admitting LHO could have only fired two shots, then get after it. To date you have not proven there even was a third shot. Until you do it, it is really hard to place any relevance of any kind on any of these rants. These theories you have presented really should begin with a disclaimer as to their accuracy.
Pat Speer was dead on: Just “blowing smoke”:
Even in the Zapruder film it can be clearly viewed that this is absolutely wrong. Do you really need an expert to look at photos and see the damage?
“4. Dr. Mantik, one of the heroes of the alteration crowd, says the x-rays are deceptive and that they actually DO show the back of the head to be missing. Does that change your impression at all? Or do you agree with the likes of...well, me...that he is blowing smoke?”
First, at a rather early stage in my OD work, after I had (wrongly) decided that the OD data were inconsistent with composite X-rays (in a widely, but privately, circulated paper, titled “2 + 2 = 4”), I had followed the data where (I thought) they led and stated that the X-rays must be authentic. Speer apparently does not know this history. The correction of my mistake came from Arthur G. Haus and colleagues at Kodak, who advised me about image crossovers (from one side of the film to the other) in these 1960s X-rays, a technical problem that was later solved
-
Of course, another severe problem with the undamaged cerebellum seen in the autopsy brain photos is that several of the Dallas doctors, including a neurosurgeon, said the cerebellum was damaged and protruding and oozing/dripping from the right-rear exit wound.
Keep in mind, too, that cerebellar tissue is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue because it has a very different appearance, and the cerebellum is located directly behind the lower half of the occipital bone.
Dr. Kemp Clark, Parkland Hospital's chief neurosurgeon, examined JFK's head and reported that the large head wound exposed the cerebellum and that damaged cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound because the wound included part of the occiput. From his WC testimony:
I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. (6 H 20)
From Dr. Clark's 11/22/63 summary report:
Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . .
There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . . There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)
Yet, the autopsy brain photos show the cerebellum undamaged and entirely intact and connected with the surrounding brain regions, and don't even show any pre-mortem bleeding of the cerebellum, as HSCA FPP member Dr. George Loquvam pointed out to Dr. Finck.
Dr. Clark's report of damaged cerebellar tissue exposed by a large wound in the right-rear part of the skull is supported by several other medical witnesses. For example, Dr. Robert McClelland noted the large right-rear wound and said some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out:
I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. (6 H 34)
Dr. Malcolm Perry:
I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal-occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue. (3 H 372)
The brain tissue behind the occiput consists of the cerebellum and the right and left occipital lobes, but the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and the occipital lobes.
Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:
There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392)
Dr. Charles Carrico:
. . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)
There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. (6 H 3)
The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipito-parietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. . . . There was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura. (6 H 6)
In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said,
The other wound was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound. (7 HSCA 268)
But, again, in the autopsy brain photos, the cerebellum is undamaged and intact, is not the least bit dislodged from the rest of the brain, and does not even show any pre-mortem bleeding. The HSCA FPP members (except for Dr. Wecht) repeatedly pointed this out to the autopsy doctors to try to get them to repudiate the EOP site.
I should add that John T. Stringer, the autopsy photographer, when asked what he recalled about the cerebellum before looking at the brain photos, said the cerebellum was "damaged, lacerated, cut" (Deposition of John Stringer, ARRB, 7/16/96, pp. 225-226).
Finally, as many here know, the existence of the large right-rear head wound, i.e., the large right occipital-parietal head wound, was confirmed by the Parkland nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze to prepare the body for the casket, by Secret Service agent Clint Hill in his first report on the shooting and in later statements, and by numerous witnesses at the autopsy, including the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy.
-
Of course, another severe problem with the undamaged cerebellum seen in the autopsy brain photos is that several of the Dallas doctors, including a neurosurgeon, said the cerebellum was damaged and protruding and oozing/dripping from the right-rear exit wound.
Keep in mind, too, that cerebellar tissue is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue because it has a very different appearance, and the cerebellum is located directly behind the lower half of the occipital bone.
Dr. Kemp Clark, Parkland Hospital's chief neurosurgeon, examined JFK's head and reported that the large head wound exposed the cerebellum and that damaged cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound because the wound included part of the occiput. From his WC testimony:
I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. (6 H 20)
From Dr. Clark's 11/22/63 summary report:
Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . .
There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . . There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)
Yet, the autopsy brain photos show the cerebellum undamaged and entirely intact and connected with the surrounding brain regions, and don't even show any pre-mortem bleeding of the cerebellum, as HSCA FPP member Dr. George Loquvam pointed out to Dr. Finck.
Dr. Clark's report of damaged cerebellar tissue exposed by a large wound in the right-rear part of the skull is supported by several other medical witnesses. For example, Dr. Robert McClelland noted the large right-rear wound and said some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out:
I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. (6 H 34)
Dr. Malcolm Perry:
I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal-occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue. (3 H 372)
The brain tissue behind the occiput consists of the cerebellum and the right and left occipital lobes, but the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and the occipital lobes.
Dr. Marion T. Jenkins:
There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392)
Dr. Charles Carrico:
. . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392)
There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. (6 H 3)
The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipito-parietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. . . . There was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura. (6 H 6)
In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said,
The other wound was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound. (7 HSCA 268)
But, again, in the autopsy brain photos, the cerebellum is undamaged and intact, is not the least bit dislodged from the rest of the brain, and does not even show any pre-mortem bleeding. The HSCA FPP members (except for Dr. Wecht) repeatedly pointed this out to the autopsy doctors to try to get them to repudiate the EOP site.
I should add that John T. Stringer, the autopsy photographer, when asked what he recalled about the cerebellum before looking at the brain photos, said the cerebellum was "damaged, lacerated, cut" (Deposition of John Stringer, ARRB, 7/16/96, pp. 225-226).
Finally, as many here know, the existence of the large right-rear head wound, i.e., the large right occipital-parietal head wound, was confirmed by the Parkland nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze to prepare the body for the casket, by Secret Service agent Clint Hill in his first report on the shooting and in later statements, and by numerous witnesses at the autopsy, including the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy.
Cerebral is a reference to the brain as a whole brain, not just the cerebellum. You understand that right?
It appears Dr Hodges is no longer the expert doctor on the damage to the brain? Probably because he does not state what you want. Hodges does not support your belief that a bullet passed through the cerebellum.
You want the cerebellum to be where the bullet traveled, and according to your expert, Dr Hodges, it did not. First you trot Dr Hodges out as an expert, and now you are no longer supporting what he stated?
Maybe in your rush to try and prove this bullet passing through the cerebellum nonsense, you did not notice none of these doctors quoted in this post describe a bullet passing through the cerebellum. That is just your imagination working overtime.
Everyone of these doctors describe a wound that enters the back of the head, fragments or explodes in the brain, and exits above the right ear. Where is the conspiracy in this post?
--------------------------------------
The damage to the brain being described by you is a result of the bullet fragmenting and exiting the side of the skull not a bullet passing through the brain. Just like the doctors state.
Pat Speer:
4. The damage to the underside of the brain, which was described by Humes and others, even Chesser, is not shown in the drawing published by the HSCA, which is a view from above. No view of the underside has ever been made available
MGiffith:
“Only a drawing of one of the autopsy brain photos has been released, but several experts have been allowed to view all the brain photos at the National Archives. Baden got to view them at length as part of the HSCA FPP's review of the medical evidence. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have also seen all the brain photos. They have confirmed Baden's statement that the brain photos show only a very small amount of missing brain tissue, no more than 2 ounces.”
MGriffith:
“Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.”
-------------------
MGiffith:
“Only a drawing of one of the autopsy brain photos has been released, but several experts have been allowed to view all the brain photos at the National Archives. Baden got to view them at length as part of the HSCA FPP's review of the medical evidence. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have also seen all the brain photos. They have confirmed Baden's statement that the brain photos show only a very small amount of missing brain tissue, no more than 2 ounces.”
Herniated indicates that the brain protruded out, not the bullet passed through it.
Dr. JENKINS - ........ I was aware of the magnitude of the wound, because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay.
“The damage to the underside of the brain, which was described by Humes and others, even Chesser[/[/u]b], is not shown in the drawing published by the HSCA,”
They stated “underside”of the brain---Not a bullet passing through it.
Nowhere are they supporting your statements of a bullet passing through the cerebellum. They state they see it, but that in no way indicates the bullet hit it.
-----------
These statements are just wrong. The bullet proceeded on a diagonal but straight through the skull back to front, because JFK’s head was tilted down.
M Griffith:
“Another point you keep ducking and dodging around is the fact that any bullet that hit the EOP at a downward angle would have torn through the cerebellum but that the brain photos show a virtually pristine cerebellum.”
“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.”
Mr. SPECTER - The physicians, surgeons who examined the President at the autopsy specifically, Commander James J. Humes, H-u-m-e-s (spelling); Commander J. Thornton Boswell, B-o-s-w-e-l-l (spelling), and Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, F-i-n-c-k (spelling), expressed the Joint opinion that the wound which I have just described as being 15 by 6 mm. and 2.5 cm. to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberant was a point of entrance of a bullet in the President's head at a time when the President's head was moved slightly forward with his chin dropping into his chest, when he was riding in an open car at a slightly downhill position. With those facts being supplied to them in a hypothetical fashion, they concluded that the bullet would have taken a more or less straight course, exiting from the center of the President's skull at a point indicated by an opening from three portions of the skull reconstructed, which had been brought to them---would those findings and those conclusions be consistent with your observations if you assumed the additional facts which I have brought to your attention, in addition to those which you have personally observed?
Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir.
-
This would be a great time to show case Dr Mantik's OD measurements. Dr Mantik can use OD Measurements on the brain matter and blood cloud above JFK from the headshot in the Zapruder Film. Isn’t it your claim that it is science and works no matter what is taking place.
So you're straining and dodging right out of the gate. Speaking of the explosion of brain and blood seen in the Zapruder film, are you seriously suggesting that the brain matter blown out of the head in Z313-316 amounted to no more than 2 ounces?
Again, bits of JFK's brain ended up on 16 surfaces, a fact that you continue to ignore. Most of the pieces were blown out, while a few of them fell out at the hospital, such as the pieces that dripped onto the cart in the ER--and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain that Jackie brought into the ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins.
What brain matter was held in Jackie's hand was not part of what was blown up into the air and would have been placed back with the rest, would it not have?
LOL! Say what?! Where in the autopsy brain photos do you see a separate "large chunk" of brain tissue? Yikes!
Brain tissue is not like clay. You can't just take a large piece of brain tissue that has been blown out of the brain and press it against the rest of the brain to reattach it. You understand that, right? Right? Yes?
Dr Mantik would undoubtedly have known this, and it could be figured into his calculations because it is a science or claimed to be one.
What? Huh? Just how ridiculous can you get? The large chunk of brain that Jackie handed it to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER was not in the skull when the x-rays were made.
It almost sounds like you're claiming that Dr. Humes somehow obtained the large chunk of brain before taking the skull x-rays, then pushed the large chunk back into the skull, and then took the skull x-rays! You're not stooping to that depth of absurdity, are you?
If so, I'll just say that it is mighty strange that there is no record of a large chunk of brain being brought to the autopsy, much less that Dr. Humes received a large chunk of brain at the start of the autopsy and then pushed it back into the skull before the skull x-rays were taken!
You see, the problem is that you just can't bring yourself to face the fact that far more brain tissue was blown out of JFK's brain than is missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos, and that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, which is vastly more brain tissue than is missing from the brain in the autopsy brain photos.
We haven't even talked about the impossible brain weight recorded by the autopsy doctors: 1,500 grams. The average male brain weighs about 1,350 grams. After the shooting, JFK's brain could not have weighed more than 900 grams.
And I see you still can't even muster up enough objectivity and credibility to at least admit that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You're like a Flat Earther who can't bring himself to admit that satellite imagery is not a recognized, established science. Here are more sources on the fact that OD measurement is an established science:
https://www.cet-science.com/products/testing-methods/biological-analysis/optical-density-measurement-od600/
EXCERPT: Optical density measurement (OD or OD600) is used in microbiology to estimate the concentration of bacteria or other cells in a liquid.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/optical-density
EXCERPT: Optical density (OD) is defined as a measure based on the linear relationship between light absorbance and particle concentration, commonly used for its speed and cost-effectiveness in monitoring biological samples. It is often applied at specific wavelengths to minimize background noise, particularly in bacterial cultures and microalgae measurements. . . . Optical density is measured by an instrument known as a densitometer, which incorporates a small light source, generally 1–2 mm in diameter, and a light detector.
FYI, Dr. Mantik, who recently retired from his career as a radiation oncologist, used a densitometer when he did his OD measurements on the JFK skull x-rays.
Google AI overview: Radiation oncologists use optical density measurement, often by scanning specially prepared films or dosimeters, to quantify and verify radiation dose distributions in treatment planning and delivery. The optical density of a scanned film is converted into a digital map of the radiation dose, allowing for the precise verification of the treatment plan. This process helps ensure the prescribed dose is accurately delivered to the tumor while minimizing harm to surrounding healthy tissues.
I doubt you have read this, it is from Dr Mantik’s reply to Pat Speer’s critique, but this is where Dr Mantik went off the rails on the X Rays having been faked. Again, where is the science in this? There is no crime in not knowing something but reaching conclusions that are proven wrong then casts doubt on other aspects of the conclusions.
“The correction of my mistake came from Arthur G. Haus and colleagues at Kodak, who advised me about image crossovers (from one side of the film to the other) in these 1960s X-rays, a technical problem that was later solved. (Initially, I had only known about modern X-ray films, where the image cannot effectively cross over from one side to the other.) The presence of such crossover in these JFK X-rays, though, re-opened the door to photographic alteration in the darkroom.”
Faked X Rays instead of just admit he was mistaken.
Oh my goodness. You have once again completely misunderstood Dr. Mantik's point. I'm trying to fathom how you could so totally misread what Dr. Mantik is saying. Let me try to explain it to you in the simplest terms possible:
Dr. Mantik initially believed the skull x-rays had to be authentic because their images appeared on both emulsions, on both sides of the film. At the time, he believed that the x-ray film used in the 1960s would have prevented a great deal of light from crossing over from one side of the film to the other, and that therefore the film would not allow enough crossover light to produce an image on the other side of the film, i.e., on both emulsions. Thus, he concluded the skull x-rays had not been altered because he believed that an altered image could not have been copied onto double-emulsion film. But, he later learned from two experts at Kodak, including Dr. Haus, that this was not the case.
Here is Dr. Mantik's explanation on this issue in his first article on his OD measurements of the skull x-rays:
Standard X-ray film, on the other hand, has an emulsion on both sides---and so did these autopsy X-ray films! This surprising observation put me off the scent for a while. I was not familiar with double-sided emulsions being used for making copies. If these films had had images on just one side, I might still have been able to argue that they were copies.
But then I noticed that the image appeared on both emulsions! I could conclude this because the emulsion had peeled off in several places so that I could see one emulsion at a time. Actually, I used the background grid lines on the film for this purpose, which was just as good. There were about 2.3 lines per millimeter, and with my glasses off I could see these well. I also used a high-power microscope to confirm that the image occurred on both sides; because the depth of field was so shallow, I could focus on one side at a time. This observation made me think that the films had to be originals. . . .
From my training in radiation oncology, I had remembered that not too much light crosses over from one emulsion to the other in an x-ray film. Such crossover is considered undesirable because it tends to fuzz out the image. Then one day I phoned the experts at Kodak. Two of them got on the line, including Arthur G. Haus, Director of Medical Physics, and we a had a round table discussion. (I later had the pleasure of meeting Haus at one of my specialty meetings in Los Angeles; he also graciously reviewed this article for me.)
In the course of that conversation, they stunned me. They said that for film in the 1960s, a great deal of light could cross over from one side to the other--sometimes even enough to produce a nearly equal image on both sides, even though it was exposed to light from only one side!
So there, at last, was the explanation. In the early 1960s, nothing special had to be done to copy a superior image onto a double-emulsion film. Furthermore, the image would be nearly equal (and of good quality) on both emulsions, just as I had seen on the autopsy films. That was because the 1960s films were not as good as our present ones--crossover is more limited nowadays. (See Arthur G. Haus, 1995, Characteristics of Screen-Film Combinations for Conventional Medical Radiography, Eastman Kodak Publication No. N-319.) (Assassination Science, pp. 133-135)
-
So you're straining and dodging right out of the gate. Speaking of the explosion of brain and blood seen in the Zapruder film, are you seriously suggesting that the brain matter blown out of the head in Z313-316 amounted to no more than 2 ounces?
Again, bits of JFK's brain ended up on 16 surfaces, a fact that you continue to ignore. Most of the pieces were blown out, while a few of them fell out at the hospital, such as the pieces that dripped onto the cart in the ER--and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain that Jackie brought into the ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins.
LOL! Say what?! Where in the autopsy brain photos do you see a separate "large chunk" of brain tissue? Yikes!
Brain tissue is not like clay. You can't just take a large piece of brain tissue that has been blown out of the brain and press it against the rest of the brain to reattach it. You understand that, right? Right? Yes?
What? Huh? Just how ridiculous can you get? The large chunk of brain that Jackie handed it to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER was not in the skull when the x-rays were made.
It almost sounds like you're claiming that Dr. Humes somehow obtained the large chunk of brain before taking the skull x-rays, then pushed the large chunk back into the skull, and then took the skull x-rays! You're not stooping to that depth of absurdity, are you?
If so, I'll just say that it is mighty strange that there is no record of a large chunk of brain being brought to the autopsy, much less that Dr. Humes received a large chunk of brain at the start of the autopsy and then pushed it back into the skull before the skull x-rays were taken!
You see, the problem is that you just can't bring yourself to face the fact that far more brain tissue was blown out of JFK's brain than is missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos, and that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, which is vastly more brain tissue than is missing from the brain in the autopsy brain photos.
We haven't even talked about the impossible brain weight recorded by the autopsy doctors: 1,500 grams. The average male brain weighs about 1,350 grams. After the shooting, JFK's brain could not have weighed more than 900 grams.
And I see you still can't even muster up enough objectivity and credibility to at least admit that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You're like a Flat Earther who can't bring himself to admit that satellite imagery is not a recognized, established science. Here are more sources on the fact that OD measurement is an established science:
https://www.cet-science.com/products/testing-methods/biological-analysis/optical-density-measurement-od600/
EXCERPT: Optical density measurement (OD or OD600) is used in microbiology to estimate the concentration of bacteria or other cells in a liquid.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/optical-density
EXCERPT: Optical density (OD) is defined as a measure based on the linear relationship between light absorbance and particle concentration, commonly used for its speed and cost-effectiveness in monitoring biological samples. It is often applied at specific wavelengths to minimize background noise, particularly in bacterial cultures and microalgae measurements. . . . Optical density is measured by an instrument known as a densitometer, which incorporates a small light source, generally 1–2 mm in diameter, and a light detector.
FYI, Dr. Mantik, who recently retired from his career as a radiation oncologist, used a densitometer when he did his OD measurements on the JFK skull x-rays.
Google AI overview: Radiation oncologists use optical density measurement, often by scanning specially prepared films or dosimeters, to quantify and verify radiation dose distributions in treatment planning and delivery. The optical density of a scanned film is converted into a digital map of the radiation dose, allowing for the precise verification of the treatment plan. This process helps ensure the prescribed dose is accurately delivered to the tumor while minimizing harm to surrounding healthy tissues.
Oh my goodness. You have once again completely misunderstood Dr. Mantik's point. I'm trying to fathom how you could so totally misread what Dr. Mantik is saying. Let me try to explain it to you in the simplest terms possible:
Dr. Mantik initially believed the skull x-rays had to be authentic because their images appeared on both emulsions, on both sides of the film. At the time, he believed that the x-ray film used in the 1960s would have prevented a great deal of light from crossing over from one side of the film to the other, and that therefore the film would not allow enough crossover light to produce an image on the other side of the film, i.e., on both emulsions. Thus, he concluded the skull x-rays had not been altered because he believed that an altered image could not have been copied onto double-emulsion film. But, he later learned from two experts at Kodak, including Dr. Haus, that this was not the case.
Here is Dr. Mantik's explanation on this issue in his first article on his OD measurements of the skull x-rays:
Standard X-ray film, on the other hand, has an emulsion on both sides---and so did these autopsy X-ray films! This surprising observation put me off the scent for a while. I was not familiar with double-sided emulsions being used for making copies. If these films had had images on just one side, I might still have been able to argue that they were copies.
But then I noticed that the image appeared on both emulsions! I could conclude this because the emulsion had peeled off in several places so that I could see one emulsion at a time. Actually, I used the background grid lines on the film for this purpose, which was just as good. There were about 2.3 lines per millimeter, and with my glasses off I could see these well. I also used a high-power microscope to confirm that the image occurred on both sides; because the depth of field was so shallow, I could focus on one side at a time. This observation made me think that the films had to be originals. . . .
From my training in radiation oncology, I had remembered that not too much light crosses over from one emulsion to the other in an x-ray film. Such crossover is considered undesirable because it tends to fuzz out the image. Then one day I phoned the experts at Kodak. Two of them got on the line, including Arthur G. Haus, Director of Medical Physics, and we a had a round table discussion. (I later had the pleasure of meeting Haus at one of my specialty meetings in Los Angeles; he also graciously reviewed this article for me.)
In the course of that conversation, they stunned me. They said that for film in the 1960s, a great deal of light could cross over from one side to the other--sometimes even enough to produce a nearly equal image on both sides, even though it was exposed to light from only one side!
So there, at last, was the explanation. In the early 1960s, nothing special had to be done to copy a superior image onto a double-emulsion film. Furthermore, the image would be nearly equal (and of good quality) on both emulsions, just as I had seen on the autopsy films. That was because the 1960s films were not as good as our present ones--crossover is more limited nowadays. (See Arthur G. Haus, 1995, Characteristics of Screen-Film Combinations for Conventional Medical Radiography, Eastman Kodak Publication No. N-319.) (Assassination Science, pp. 133-135)
So you're straining and dodging right out of the gate. Speaking of the explosion of brain and blood seen in the Zapruder film, are you seriously suggesting that the brain matter blown out of the head in Z313-316 amounted to no more than 2 ounces?
Yes. Dr Baden weighed it. I bet Jackie's “chunk” was in there. Scales aren’t allowed in conspiracy land?
Again, bits of JFK's brain ended up on 16 surfaces, a fact that you continue to ignore. Most of the pieces were blown out, while a few of them fell out at the hospital, such as the pieces that dripped onto the cart in the ER--and this is not counting the "large chunk" of brain that Jackie brought into the ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins.
Give an estimate of weight on each of the sixteen surfaces. Better yet give an estimate on the amount produced in the Zapruder Film. Call Dr Mantik, he can estimate it with OD, or don’t you think it has yet reached science level.
LOL! Say what?! Where in the autopsy brain photos do you see a separate "large chunk" of brain tissue? Yikes!
Brain tissue is not like clay. You can't just take a large piece of brain tissue that has been blown out of the brain and press it against the rest of the brain to reattach it. You understand that, right? Right? Yes?
I was thinking of a specimen jar but feel free to provide an explanation for disposition that you think is better.
----------------
What? Huh? Just how ridiculous can you get? The large chunk of brain that Jackie handed it to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER was not in the skull when the x-rays were made.
OK. Sounds like a drama queen but just for the record describe and give a weight for a “large chunk”
It almost sounds like you're claiming that Dr. Humes somehow obtained the large chunk of brain before taking the skull x-rays, then pushed the large chunk back into the skull, and then took the skull x-rays! You're not stooping to that depth of absurdity, are you?
No, I can’t because you are firmly planted between myself and “that depth of absurdity”.
If so, I'll just say that it is mighty strange that there is no record of a large chunk of brain being brought to the autopsy, much less that Dr. Humes received a large chunk of brain at the start of the autopsy and then pushed it back into the skull before the skull x-rays were taken!
You brought it up; you are now saying you didn’t believe what you previously posted?
You see, the problem is that you just can't bring yourself to face the fact that far more brain tissue was blown out of JFK's brain than is missing from the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos, and that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, which is vastly more brain tissue than is missing from the brain in the autopsy brain photos.
Again, give the estimate by surface when it is convenient, or a total estimated amount would work too, and we can estimate by dividing by 16.
We haven't even talked about the impossible brain weight recorded by the autopsy doctors: 1,500 grams. The average male brain weighs about 1,350 grams. After the shooting, JFK's brain could not have weighed more than 900 grams.
Sounds like a proclamation. Maybe JFK did not consider himself average. What are you basing your expertise in brain weights on?
And I see you still can't even muster up enough objectivity and credibility to at least admit that OD measurement is a recognized, established science. You're like a Flat Earther who can't bring himself to admit that satellite imagery is not a recognized, established science. Here are more sources on the fact that OD measurement is an established science:
https://www.cet-science.com/products/testing-methods/biological-analysis/optical-density-measurement-od600/
EXCERPT: Optical density measurement (OD or OD600) is used in microbiology to estimate the concentration of bacteria or other cells in a liquid.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/optical-density
EXCERPT: Optical density (OD) is defined as a measure based on the linear relationship between light absorbance and particle concentration, commonly used for its speed and cost-effectiveness in monitoring biological samples. It is often applied at specific wavelengths to minimize background noise, particularly in bacterial cultures and microalgae measurements. . . . Optical density is measured by an instrument known as a densitometer, which incorporates a small light source, generally 1–2 mm in diameter, and a light detector.
FYI, Dr. Mantik, who recently retired from his career as a radiation oncologist, used a densitometer when he did his OD measurements on the JFK skull x-rays.
Has it been a science from the beginning of time? Dr Mantik called it “experimental” when he was describing it. As memory serves “experimental” is not considered a science. The science of experimental OD does not sound right.
--------------
Oh my goodness. You have once again completely misunderstood Dr. Mantik's point. I'm trying to fathom how you could so totally misread what Dr. Mantik is saying. Let me try to explain it to you in the simplest terms possible:
Dr. Mantik initially believed the skull x-rays had to be authentic because their images appeared on both emulsions, on both sides of the film. At the time, he believed that the x-ray film used in the 1960s would have prevented a great deal of light from crossing over from one side of the film to the other, and that therefore the film would not allow enough crossover light to produce an image on the other side of the film, i.e., on both emulsions. Thus, he concluded the skull x-rays had not been altered because he believed that an altered image could not have been copied onto double-emulsion film. But, he later learned from two experts at Kodak, including Dr. Haus, that this was not the case.
Here is Dr. Mantik's explanation on this issue in his first article on his OD measurements of the skull x-rays:
Standard X-ray film, on the other hand, has an emulsion on both sides---and so did these autopsy X-ray films! This surprising observation put me off the scent for a while. I was not familiar with double-sided emulsions being used for making copies. If these films had had images on just one side, I might still have been able to argue that they were copies.
But then I noticed that the image appeared on both emulsions! I could conclude this because the emulsion had peeled off in several places so that I could see one emulsion at a time. Actually, I used the background grid lines on the film for this purpose, which was just as good. There were about 2.3 lines per millimeter, and with my glasses off I could see these well. I also used a high-power microscope to confirm that the image occurred on both sides; because the depth of field was so shallow, I could focus on one side at a time. This observation made me think that the films had to be originals. . . .
From my training in radiation oncology, I had remembered that not too much light crosses over from one emulsion to the other in an x-ray film. Such crossover is considered undesirable because it tends to fuzz out the image. Then one day I phoned the experts at Kodak. Two of them got on the line, including Arthur G. Haus, Director of Medical Physics, and we a had a round table discussion. (I later had the pleasure of meeting Haus at one of my specialty meetings in Los Angeles; he also graciously reviewed this article for me.)
In the course of that conversation, they stunned me. They said that for film in the 1960s, a great deal of light could cross over from one side to the other--sometimes even enough to produce a nearly equal image on both sides, even though it was exposed to light from only one side!
So there, at last, was the explanation. In the early 1960s, nothing special had to be done to copy a superior image onto a double-emulsion film. Furthermore, the image would be nearly equal (and of good quality) on both emulsions, just as I had seen on the autopsy films. That was because the 1960s films were not as good as our present ones--crossover is more limited nowadays. (See Arthur G. Haus, 1995, Characteristics of Screen-Film Combinations for Conventional Medical Radiography, Eastman Kodak Publication No. N-319.) (Assassination Science, pp. 133-135)
Oh, this explains everything. So much better. Did you even read it or just cut and paste it for the post?
Maybe give the Dr Mantik story a rest. He said what he said and did what he did, an explanation from you does not change anything. He declared the photos as being faked and described all of the mistakes he made. You should read the link about Pat Speer that you posted.
Where are Dr Hodges’s quotes about the damage? I did not see them posted with your explanation for why they do not support what you have posted.
-
Perhaps now is a good time to discuss more of the evidence that the cowlick entry site is bogus and that the EOP site is correct.
Before I do so, let's consider the wildly implausible scenario proposed by the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel (except for Dr. Hodges), and the HSCA FPP: Two pathologists (Humes and Boswell) and a forensic pathologist (Finck) shockingly mistook a wound in the cowlick for a wound slightly above the EOP, a stunning blunder of 10 cm or 4 inches (actually, 63/1000ths of an inch shy of 4 inches: 3.937 inches), and that they committed this astounding blunder even though they had several prominent reference points to use in identifying the wound's location, i.e., the hairline, the EOP, the lambda, the lambdoid suture, and the sagittal suture.
Both the WC and the HSCA diagrams of the large exit wound show that the lambda, the lambdoid suture, and the sagittal suture would have still been intact and plainly visible when the autopsy doctors reflected the scalp. The now-debunked cowlick site was allegedly located right around 1.7 cm above the lambda, 0.8 cm to the right of the sagittal suture, and 2.5 cm above the lambdoid suture. The lambda is about 4 inches above the EOP.
Obviously, an entry wound 1.7 cm (0.66 inches) above the lambda, 0.8 cm (0.31 inches) to the right of the sagittal suture, and 2.5 cm (1 inch) above the lambdoid suture would be nowhere near the EOP, much less the hairline. Indeed, such a wound would clearly not even be in the occipital bone at all--it would be in the parietal bone.
To accept the cowlick site, one would have to believe that the autopsy doctors somehow, someway closely examined a wound that was above and to the right of three clear reference points on the skull and that was obviously in the parietal bone but mistook it for a wound that was 4 inches lower and in the right-middle part of the occipital bone, even after they reflected the scalp.
Now, let us examine some of the evidence relating to the cowlick site and the EOP site:
-- The top-of-head autopsy photos (such as photo F7) show intact cerebral cortex at the cowlick site, as neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph N. Riley pointed out. Thus, no bullet could have entered there. I'll return to this point later in this reply
-- There is no fragment trail near the cowlick site. The high fragment trail is 1.9 inches (5 cm) above the cowlick site.
-- The 6.5 mm object in the outer table of the skull is not at the cowlick site but is 1 cm below it. Virtually everyone now acknowledges that the 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment. But, until the 1990s, everyone believed it was a bullet fragment, including the Clark Panel and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP). Dr. Larry Sturdivan, the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant, says the following about the FPP's use of the 6.5 mm object as evidence of the cowlick entry site:
This second bit of evidence was discussed several times during the meetings of the FPP and is mentioned by Dr. Baden as a “relatively large metal fragment” in his majority report in the open hearings. It is interesting that it was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their proposed entry site. A fully-jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but will not fragment on the outside of the skull. (The JFK Myths, p. 184)
-- The McDonnel fragment on the outer table of the skull is a genuine bullet fragment, but it is 1 cm below and to the left of the cowlick site.
-- Not a single witness at the autopsy said the rear head entry wound was in the cowlick. Every autopsy witness who commented on the wound's location said it was near the hairline. JFK's hairline was about 1 inch below the EOP. Thus, a wound "slightly above" the EOP would certainly be near the hairline. (In his HSCA testimony, Dr. Finck seemed to define "slightly above" as being right around 1 cm, or 0.39 inches, or 1/100th of an inch less than 4/10ths of an inch.)
-- Chief autopsy photographer John Stringer, Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, military aide Richard Lipsey, and FBI agent Francis O'Neill said the rear head entry wound was near the hairline. Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey drew wound diagrams for the HSCA and placed the wound low on the back of the head and near the hairline. Stringer specified that the wound was "very close" to the EOP.
-- Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told the HSCA that the rear head entry wound was located where the autopsy doctors said it was located. Dr. Ebersole's HSCA wound diagram places the wound very close to the EOP and near the hairline.
-- One of the important disclosures that came from the ARRB releases in the mid-1990s is the fact that two “angle lines” were drawn on the right lateral skull x-ray and that the lines converge at the EOP site. In their report on their five-hour November 1966 review of the autopsy materials, the autopsy doctors specifically described those lines as “angle lines.” One of the lines goes upward at a 32-degree angle from the EOP site to a spot on the high point of the forehead. The other line goes straight through the area of the subcortical damage described in the autopsy report, the same damage discussed in detail by Dr. Riley in his two articles on the evidence that two bullets hit the skull.
-- Another key disclosure from the ARRB materials is the fact that Dr. Ebersole confirmed that a large piece of occipital bone arrived from Dallas during the autopsy. This lends credence to Dr. Boswell's disclosure to the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment from Dallas.
Of course, Dr. Ebersole's disclosure about a large occipital bone fragment creates a severe problem for the autopsy photos of the back of head (photos F3 and F5), because those photos show no bone missing from the occiput.
The late-arriving skull fragment may well have been the Harper Fragment, which appears to contain about one-third to one-half of a small circular wound on one of its edges. The only three pathologists who handled and examined the Harper Fragment itself said it was occipital bone. The three pathologists were Dr. A.B. Cairns, the chief pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas, and Dr. Jack Harper and Dr. Gerard Noteboom, who were also pathologists at Methodist Hospital.
When Dr. Mantik interviewed Dr. Noteboom in a recorded interview in November 1992, Dr. Noteboom confirmed that the Harper Fragment was occipital bone and that he actually held the fragment in his hands as he examined it.
Predictably, the Harper Fragment disappeared after the FBI gave it to Dr. George Burkley. We have the two FBI photos of the fragment, but not the fragment itself. Again, the only three pathologists who handled and examined the fragment itself said it was occipital bone.
-- When Dr. Finck was asked about the cowlick site during the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, he adamantly rejected it. The subject arose because the Clark Panel's report, which puts the rear head entry wound in the cowlick, 10 cm above the EOP site, had recently been released. Here's what Dr. Finck said:
I saw that wound of entry in the back of the head at approximately 1 inch or 25 millimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters [10 cm] above it. (Clay Shaw trial transcript, 2/26/69, p. 23, HSCA record number 180-10097-10185)
-- As documented in previous replies, Dr. Fred Hodges, the only radiologist on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel, said the autopsy photos and x-rays supported the autopsy report's location for the rear head entry wound in the right occiput.
-- Dr. Randy Robertson, a diagnostic radiologist, argues that the skull x-rays support the EOP site. Among many other points, Dr. Robertson notes that the angle lines drawn on the right lateral skull x-ray are virtually identical to the trajectory lines drawn by medical illustrator Harold Rydberg on CE 388, the WC's diagram of JFK's head wounds:
By an amazing coincidence the pencil lines drawn on the lateral skull x-ray match almost to the degree the trajectory lines present on CE 388. They both measure very close to 32 degrees. It is beyond my imagination to believe that these matching trajectory lines were drawn on CE 388 without the direct or indirect use of the measurements off the lateral skull x-ray. Interestingly the perspective of CE 388 is in the same straight side view of the head just as the lateral x-rays. There are strong implications that the x-rays were used as a template for CE 388. . . . When CE 388 and the lateral skull x-ray are compared side by side you see that they both intersect the skull at the same level--slightly above the EOP. ("The Tell Tale Trajectory Lines," http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Robertson%20Randolph%20H%20Dr/Item%2005.pdf)
-- Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, concluded that the autopsy photos and x-rays support the EOP site and destroy the cowlick site. Excerpts from his two articles on the subject:
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. What is unappreciated is that this cortex (superior parietal lobule) corresponds to the HSCA's entrance site. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
The HSCA forensics panel provided an illustration of the back of the head showing the wound in the scalp (first figure, far left) and contended that this illustrated a wound in the "cowlick" area. There are numerous problems with this contention. The single sole objective measurement provided by the HSCA is that the wound was located 13 cm from the first prominent crease in the neck.
There are numerous problems with this description (e.g., how can it be 13 cm from the base of the neck and 10 cm above the external occipital protuberance?). However, when 13 cm is measured on a scale drawing (bottom, far left; bar represents 13 cm), the scalp wound is not located even remotely close to the "high" entrance wound. When this location is compared to the X-rays, it corresponds exactly to the point identified above (bottom, far right) [the EOP site]. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
The Panel [the FPP] devoted much of its discussion of the scalp wound to refuting Humes' placement of the wound near the hairline. Unfortunately, other than asserting that the photographs show the wound in the "cowlick" area and relying on visual impressions from the photographs, the Panel fails to present any objective evidence that the scalp wound corresponds to where the Panel locates the wound on the x-rays. The question remains: based on the location of the scalp wound, where is the entrance wound on the skull? Two lines of evidence indicate that the entrance wound is not where the panel places it.
First, the Panel asserts that the scalp wound is located in the "cowlick" area. Apparently the Panel believes that the visual impression of the combed hair establishes the location of the wound.
However, it is standard forensic procedure to comb the hair around a scalp wound in order to better display it. Obviously that is the reason that the hair is parted since John Kennedy parted his hair on the opposite side of his head. In addition, even a cursory look at a picture of John Kennedy shows that his cowlick is inches above the top of the ear. The scalp wound cannot be in the cowlick area.
Rather than relying upon visual impressions, the Panel should have used objective reference points to establish the location of the scalp wound. For example, the top of the ear may be used as a reference point. In Fig. IA, a line is drawn from the top of the ear perpendicular to the ruler. This line passes through the wound. Fig. IB, from the HSCA report, is a representation of the back of John Kennedy's head. A line drawn from the top of one ear to the other approximates the level of the wound in Fig. 1A. This line falls inches below the point determined by the Panel and places the wound in the occipital bone and near the point of entry described by Humes et al. and illustrated by Boswell on the autopsy sheet (Fig. 1E).
In the sole objective measurement the Panel makes, it notes that the scalp wound is 13 cm above the neck crease in the photograph. As shown in Fig. IC, 13 cm above the neck crease is consistent with the description of Humes et al. but incompatible with the Panel's location of the entrance wound. ("The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy," The Third Decade, March 1993, pp. 6-7, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
A silly argument not worth answering. Objective people who read this thread will wonder how you can make such statements with a straight face.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
The bits of brain that were splattered or fell onto 16 surfaces undoubtedly added up to more than 2 ounces, and this is not counting the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie gave to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER. There is simply no way that the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos could be the same brain that was blasted during the assassination.
-
The bits of brain that were splattered or fell onto 16 surfaces undoubtedly added up to more than 2 ounces, and this is not counting the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie gave to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER. There is simply no way that the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos could be the same brain that was blasted during the assassination.
“undoubtedly added up to more than 2 ounces
"Undoubtedly" ---Incredible, finally admitting you have no idea how much was missing. Just making grandiose claims and wild unfounded statements with absolutely no knowledge of there being any sufficient amount other than what you believe sounds like the proper amount.
“There is simply no way that the brain seen in the autopsy brain photos could be the same brain that was blasted during the assassination.”
"Was Blasted During the Assassination"
But yet you persist in making all these claims about what the damage should be, and the top of the brain is intact and all the nonsense about high fragment trail and low fragment trail and different entrance sites because you are certain the damage has to look a certain way. Now you finally admit the damage was extensive and beyond description.
What happened to your make-believe experts and all that nonsense? Like your proof of a third shot, just faded away?
-
Consider how the evidence of fraud in the autopsy brain photos comes together and mutually corroborates:
-- None other than former HSCA FPP chairman Dr. Michael Baden acknowledged to devout WC defender Vincent Bugliosi that the autopsy brain photos show "less than" 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing. Not realizing he was providing devastating evidence against the autopsy brain photos, Bugliosi trumpeted Baden's disclosure to "refute" the eyewitnesses who said a large amount of JFK's brain was gone.
-- We know that bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto 16 surfaces. Significantly, several witnesses said the tissue was gray or white. About 40% of brain tissue is gray and about 60% is white. Those 16 bits of brain tissue alone certainly added up to more than 2 ounces.
-- We know that Jackie Kennedy brought a "large chunk of brain" into the Parkland ER and handed it to Dr. Jenkins, who then handed it to a Secret Service agent. That chunk of brain surely weighed at least 2 ounces. 2 ounces of brain tissue is about the size of a golf ball.
The autopsy report impossibly says JFK's brain weighed 1,500 grams. The average male brain weighs about 1,350 grams. 1,500 grams equals 53 ounces. 1,350 grams equals 47 ounces.
-- The autopsy skull x-rays show at least 2/3 of the right brain to be missing. Multiple optical-density (OD) measurements of the skull x-rays confirm that only about 30% of the right brain is present in the x-rays.
In 1992, before any OD measurements had been done on the skull x-rays, none other than Dr. James Humes, the chief JFK autopsy doctor, admitted to JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], May 27, 1992, p. 2798).
When Humes revealed this, he was unaware that in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, the then-chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, examined the skull x-rays and found they showed a "goodly portion" of the right brain to be "missing."
-- A number of eyewitnesses who got good looks at the damage to JFK's head said that a substantial part of the brain was blown away. These witnesses included mortician Tom Robinson, assistant autopsy photographer Floyd Riebe, Secret Service agent Clint Hill (who stared into the large hole in JFK's head for several minutes from 3-4 feet away), and FBI agent Francis O'Neill (one of the two FBI agents who observed the autopsy, and observed it from close range most of the time).
-- The autopsy photographer, John Stringer, told the ARRB he was certain he did not take the extant autopsy brain photos.
-
Jerrol Custer, an x-ray technician at the autopsy, provided clear evidence that there was an effort to produce altered autopsy skull x-rays. Custer informed the ARRB that the morning after the assassination, he was called into the radiology suite by Dr. Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist, and was told to tape some metallic fragments to skull bones. These, explained Custer, were then to be taken to a private room and x-rayed with the same machine, at the same distance, that he used the night before during the autopsy. Custer added that Ebersole said these x-rays would be used to make a bust of JFK:
I was told by Dr. Ebersole that they were to be taken to make measurements, to make a bust of President Kennedy. . . . He gave me three or four different metal fragments, varying in size. And he asked me to tape them to the bone. . . .
Obviously, taping bullet fragments to skull bones and then x-raying the bones had nothing to do with making a bust of JFK. The only skull x-rays that would be used to help create a bust of a gunshot victim would be x-rays taken before the murder, before the skull was damaged, and there would be no conceivable reason to tape metal fragments to skull bones to make a bust.
Ultimately, the plotters opted not to use these x-rays because they realized the skull x-rays could be altered via darkroom techniques that would be extremely hard to detect at the time. Dr. Mantik was able to duplicate how the x-rays were altered.
BTW, Ebersole told the HSCA that one of the skull fragments that arrived late at the autopsy was “a large fragment of the occipital bone." This confirms the numerous accounts that JFK had a large wound in the back of his head.
I discuss these facts in chapter 11 of A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy.
-
I adapted this from a recent group email by J. Keven Hofeling. This evidence dovetails nicely with the undeniable evidence that the autopsy brain photos do not show JFK's brain.
Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and the Assassination Records Review Board that he never needed to use a bone saw to remove President Kennedy's brain, claiming the skull damage was already too extensive to require cutting.
This claim is directly contradicted by multiple credible witnesses:
-- Mortician Tom Robinson testified under oath to the ARRB that he witnessed doctors sawing the skull open. When shown official autopsy photographs in 1996, Robinson rejected them as accurate depictions of the gunshot wound, stating the photos depicted "what the doctors did"—the result of their craniotomy—not the original bullet damage.
-- Radiology technician Edward Reed specifically recalled seeing Dr. Humes make a long incision with a scalpel in the frontal bone above the forehead, just behind the hairline, followed by extensive bone sawing. Reed and his colleague Jerrol Custer were then summarily dismissed from the morgue for approximately 15 minutes before being recalled to take skull x-rays.
-- Autopsy technician James Curtis Jenkins never performed or witnessed a standard craniotomy (the "skull cap" procedure he normally would have executed), yet confirmed that one clearly occurred.
THE FBI AGENTS' CRYPTIC DOCUMENTATION
FBI agents Francis X. O'Neill and James W. Sibert, present to observe the autopsy, included a peculiar notation in their official report: pathologist Humes remarked on "surgery of the head area" that had "apparently been performed before the body arrived at Bethesda."
In 1996 ARRB depositions, both agents testified that prior to the pathologists' first incision, they had seen only one head wound—the occipital-parietal blowout in the back of the skull, not on the top or side. ARRB counsel Jeremy Gunn carefully prefaced his questions with the critical phrase: "prior to the first incision by the pathologists."
By answering that only the rear wound was visible under this condition, the agents implicitly admitted that the massive damage to the top and right side of Kennedy's head visible in official autopsy photographs was created after the body arrived at Bethesda.
THE 85-MINUTE INTERREGNUM: WHEN THE SURGERY OCCURRED
Rigorous timeline analysis by Douglas Horne establishes that JFK's body:
-- Arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket and body bag at 6:35 PM (per the Boyajian report and witnesses Dennis David and Paul O'Connor).
-- Re-entered the morgue at 8:00 PM in the ceremonial bronze Dallas casket before numerous witnesses.
This created an 85-minute window during which the clandestine surgery took place. Autopsy technicians O'Connor and Jenkins were excluded from the morgue during this critical period—which explains why they did not witness the craniotomy that Robinson and Reed observed.
JENKINS' REVELATIONS AT THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY
At the 2013 JFK Lancer conference, James Curtis Jenkins provided important testimony confirming the cover-up hypothesis:
On the Condition of the Brain:
-- The standard "skull cap" craniotomy incisions were not necessary because "prior incisions" had already been made.
-- The damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than damage to the brain itself—highly unusual.
-- Dr. Humes stated: "The brain fell out in my hands" as he removed it. The spinal cord had already been completely severed by incisions on each side, in different planes—not torn, but cut with surgical precision.
-- The brain volume seemed too small for the skull cavity. Both carotid arteries were retracted, indicating they had been cut some time before the autopsy, making needle insertion extremely difficult.
Physical Impossibility:
-- About one-third of brain mass was missing, and Jenkins observed approximately two-thirds remaining.
-- Despite this massive tissue loss visible in the Zapruder film, the autopsy recorded a brain weight of 1,500 grams—exceeding the average of 1,350 grams.
Jenkins' Conclusion: The brain had already been removed before the official autopsy began. The purpose: to remove bullet fragments indicating shots from the front.
NOTE: Dr. Baden, not realizing the damning nature of his admission, informed Bugliosi that the autopsy brain photos show "less than" 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing. Yet, we know that Jackie brought a "large chunk of brain" into the Parkland ER and handed it to Dr. Jenkins, and that other bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto 16 surfaces. We also know that the autopsy skull x-rays show 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, a fact confirmed by multiple optical-density measurements.
THE FBI'S INTERNAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
-- When David Lifton called FBI agent James Sibert in 1966 about the "surgery" statement, Sibert refused to answer, stating only: "The report stands."
-- A 1966 FBI internal memo (Alex Rosen to Cartha DeLoach) focusing on the "surgery" statement revealed the Bureau's position: the agents wrote the statement "because they heard it from a doctor"—specifically, "orally furnished by the autopsy physician." This confirms the agents documented Humes' own words about surgery he had witnessed or performed.
HUMES' PERJURY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISSOCIATION
-- When asked under oath at his ARRB deposition whether he had seen any evidence of surgery on JFK's body, Humes committed perjury and said "No." This denial is particularly significant because:
-- There was barely enough time to transport JFK's body from Andrews AFB to Bethesda by helicopter for its 6:35 PM arrival.
-- Navy Captain R.O. Canada and Tom Robinson confirmed the head wound looked the same at Bethesda upon arrival as it did in Dallas.
-- Therefore, the surgery could not have occurred anywhere but at Bethesda.
Douglas Horne's conclusion: Humes performed the post-mortem surgery himself at Bethesda, then panicked before the large, disbelieving morgue audience shortly after 8:00 PM. His excited utterance about "surgery of the head area" was a defensive dissociation—attempting to create an escape route by implying "I see the surgery just like all of you do, but I didn't do it—someone else did."
-
Over in the Education Forum, Greg Burnham has posted a CIA document that talks about altering photos taken outside the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City:
Nobody Would Have Altered Any Photographic or Film Evidence, Right?
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31885-nobody-would-have-altered-any-photographic-or-film-evidence-right/
See also David Josephs' reply in that thread:
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31885-nobody-would-have-altered-any-photographic-or-film-evidence-right/#findComment-585734
No one who has done serious reading on CIA and KGB operations can doubt that photographic alteration was a tactic frequently employed by those agencies.
One would think that with the shocking revelations of evidence planting and evidence tampering by the LAPD in the Rampart scandal and in the Mark Fuhrman tapes in the 1990s, that lone-gunman theorists would stop pretending to be shocked by the argument that some JFK evidence has been altered and would stop summarily dismissing the clear evidence that some JFK autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered (not to mention the Zapruder film).
Here's an interesting article on a few of the known cases of photographic alteration by governments, political campaigns, and magazines/newspapers:
https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/~beki/cs4001/history.pdf
Clearly, the autopsy brain photos cannot show JFK's brain. They must show someone else's brain. Keep in mind that Bethesda included a pathology school, so there were plenty of human brains available to photograph instead of JFK's badly damaged and incomplete brain. Again, the JFK autopsy skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, a fact confirmed by multiple optical-density measurements.
-
Just bumping this thread, partially for the benefit of newcomers, and partially to remind everyone that lone-gunman theorists clearly have no rational, credible explanation for the evidence that the JFK autopsy brain photos simply cannot be photos of JFK's brain.
We have hard scientific evidence from multiple optical-density (OD) measurements of the JFK autopsy skull x-rays that the x-rays show about 1/3 of the right brain missing. We have Dr. Humes' own admission to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted out. We have Dr. Fred Hodges' observation that the skull x-rays show a sizable portion of the right brain to be missing. We know that bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto at least 16 surfaces. We know that Jackie Kennedy handed a "large chunk of brain" to Dr. Jenkins in the Parkland ER. We now know that Tom Robinson, one of the morticians at the autopsy, said the amount of tissue missing from JFK's brain equaled the size of a human fist. We have several other accounts of witnesses who said that a substantial amount of brain tissue was missing. Yet, by Vincent Bugliosi's own admission, the brain in the autopsy brain photos has "less than" 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing.