JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on June 18, 2026, 03:12:49 PM
-
I thought it would be worthwhile to summarize in one post some of the major problems with the JFK medical evidence.
-- The autopsy brain photos show virtually no tissue missing. Dr. Michael Baden, chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations' (HSCA's) medical panel (FPP), said they show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing tissue, a fact confirmed by every other medical expert who has seen the photos and commented on the amount of tissue they show missing. However, the autopsy skull x-rays show nearly 2/3 of the right side of the brain to be missing.
Dr. Fred Hodges, one of the most qualified radiologists to ever study the autopsy skull x-rays, said the x-rays show a substantial portion of the right brain to be missing. Dr. James Humes, the chief JFK autopsy doctor, told JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blown away. Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Michael Chesser, and Dr. David Mantik, who have examined the skull x-rays at the National Archives, have likewise said they show a large portion of the right brain to be missing. Even devout WC apologist Dr. John Lattimer said the skull x-rays show "almost the entire right hemisphere of the brain" to be missing.
Moreover, Dr. Mantik has confirmed via multiple optical-density (OD) measurements of the skull x-rays that at least 60% of the right side of the brain was blown out. The OD measurements show that at least 60% of the right brain is gone. This is hard scientific evidence that the brain photos cannot be photos of JFK's brain.
Thus, it is not at all surprising that we know that pieces of JFK's brain were blown or dropped onto 16 surfaces during the shooting, and that Jackie Kennedy brought "a large chunk of brain" into the ER and handed it to Dr. Marion Jenkins.
-- The autopsy report says the large exit wound on the head extended into the occipital bone, but the autopsy brain photos show the occipital lobes to be undamaged, and autopsy photo F3 shows the large exit wound going nowhere near the occiput and being mainly above the right ear (7 HSCA 104, Figure 13).
-- Autopsy head photos F3 and F5 show the back of the head to be intact. However, dozens of witnesses in three different locations said they saw a large wound in the right-rear/right occipital-parietal part of the head. These witnesses include the two Parkland Hospital nurses who cleaned JFK's head and packed the wound with gauze to prepare the body for the casket. They include the chief neurosurgeon at Parkland Hospital, Dr. Kemp Clark. They include the three morticians who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy. They include Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who got two prolonged, up-close looks at JFK's head wounds, and who was called to the morgue specifically to observe JFK's wounds.
Thanks to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), we learned in the 1990s that Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, revealed to the FPP that one of the late-arriving skull fragments from Dallas was "a large fragment of the occipital bone," and that Ebersole also told the FPP that there was a large visible wound in "the back of the head," that he recalled seeing a "gaping occipital wound" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/78, pp. 3, 5, 62).
-- The autopsy report says there was a fragment trail that ran from slightly above the external occipital protuberance (EOP) upward to the right eyebrow (the right supra-orbital ridge):
Roentgenograms [x-rays] of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above-described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge. (p. 4).
However, no such fragment trail appears on the extant skull x-rays. The only fragment trail on the skull x-rays is a high fragment trail that is at least 2 inches above the EOP, that runs at a downward angle instead of an upward angle, and that goes nowhere near the back of the head. Furthermore, it should be noted that the autopsy doctors said nothing about this fragment trail in the autopsy report.
-- The autopsy report says the throat wound was the exit point for the back wound. However, we now know from ARRB disclosures and other sources that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty, through extensive and repeated probing, that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. We know that technicians and observers standing near the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity.
Furthermore, we now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One of the drafts said the back wound had no exit point, while the other draft said a fragment from the head shot exited the throat.
The doctors who examined the throat wound in Dallas were certain it was an entry wound. They said it was small (about 5 cm in diameter), neat, circular, and punched inward. They also noted damage behind the throat wound that was larger than the wound itself, another standard indication that it was an entry wound.
The blood stains in the front of JFK's shirt further confirm that the throat wound was an entry wound, because there was more blood on the outside of the collar band than on the inside. If a bullet had exited the throat, one would expect there would have been just as much blood, if not more blood, on the inside of the collar band as on the outside, but the exact opposite was the case.
-- The autopsy report says the rear head entry wound was "slightly above" the EOP (this was later clarified to mean 1 cm or 39/100ths of an inch). However, a bullet entering at any angle at this spot could not have missed tearing through at least the rear part of the right occipital lobe, but the brain photos show no damage whatsoever to the rear part of that lobe--in fact, they show no damage to the entire right lobe.
If the brain photos are authentic, there could have been no entry wound near the EOP. The FPP cited the brain photos as conclusive, irrefutable evidence against the EOP entry site.
However, considerable evidence supports the EOP entry site, including one of the autopsy head photos and wound diagrams drawn by two autopsy witnesses. In addition, the chief autopsy photographer, John Stringer, told the ARRB that the entry wound was where the autopsy report placed it and that the autopsy brain photos were not the brain photos he took.
-- The Clark Panel concluded that the autopsy x-rays and photos indicated that JFK's head was hit by a high-velocity bullet, but the alleged murder weapon, the rifle that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly used, was a low-velocity rifle. Said the Clark Panel,
These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet travelling at high velocity. . . ." (Clark Panel report, p. 8 ).
But the FBI's chief firearms expert, Robert Frazier, informed the WC that the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle:
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
-- The autopsy skull x-rays show a cluster of dozens of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region. They also show a few small fragments embedded in the outer table of the back of the skull, and the fragments are nowhere near the EOP entry site. The kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used, i.e., full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) ammo, will never cause this kind of bullet fragmentation. In the WC's head-shot wound ballistics tests, not one of the FMJ bullets produced fragmentation that even remotely resembles the fragmentation seen on the autopsy skull x-rays.
Renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio, among many other experts, noted that FMJ bullets will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, and that if an x-ray shows a cloud of tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo:
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Notice two key points: (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
On an important side note, Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told ballistics and firearms expert Howard Donahue that the back-of-head fragments looked like ricochet fragments, i.e., fragments from a bullet that struck elsewhere and then sent fragments flying toward JFK's head. Former HSCA wound ballistics consultant Dr. Larry Sturdivan has said there is no way an FMJ bullet would have deposited a fragment on the rear outer table of the skull.
For more information on these issues, I refer interested readers to the following articles:
"The Suspicious 6.5 mm “Fragment”: Further Evidence of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy X-Rays"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QXCUhA5i4FmCic2nLDOnwMdCNSOa1Q10/view?usp=sharing
"A Fascinating New Development in Doug Horne's New Documentary" (Jacob Hornberger)
https://www.fff.org/2025/07/28/a-fascinating-development-in-doug-hornes-new-documentary/
"Problems with the JFK Autopsy X-Rays and Photos"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dhhA323IReT3f_-xXOGvtR2QCnBpJtak/view
"JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners" (Dr. David Mantik)
https://themantikview.org/pdf/JFK_Assassination_Paradoxes.pdf
"Testimony for the Record of Douglas P. Horne"
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Horne-Written-Testimony.pdf
"The Head Shot from the Front"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19GwhnIVGHlrffoyM_T242fF_J9v4QeQl/view
"A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence" (John Hunt)
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
An excellent article by renowned researcher John Hunt showing that the HSCA’s own expert medical consultants found evidence that contradicted the lone-gunman scenario.
"Altered History: Exposing Deceit and Deception in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence" (Doug Horne)
https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/altered-history-exposing-deceit-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-1/
"JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing
This includes a discussion of the pattern of blood stains in JFK's shirt collar and the ARRB disclosures regarding the probing of the back wound and the back wound's location.
-
I went and back and looked at some of your threads like this on the JFK Education Forum. Do you just copy and paste these conspiracy diatribes from place to place? Either way you're repeating a lot of stuff that has very little basis in reality .. your theories require all of the evidence to be fake, which is simply not believable.
-
I went and back and looked at some of your threads like this on the JFK Education Forum. Do you just copy and paste these conspiracy diatribes from place to place? Either way you're repeating a lot of stuff that has very little basis in reality .. your theories require all of the evidence to be fake, which is simply not believable.
Tommy, you missed his 24-word essay, "JFKA Evidence I Don't Think Was Fake." For those who don't have the patience to wade through all 24 words, he concedes that the TSBD was a real building, not a prop constructed specifically for the JFKA, and that Ruth Paine was "some of sort of Quaker." Otherwise, it's all fake. As I said, these repetitive threads seem to be a loop that plays continually in his head, completely recycling every 2-3 years.
-
Perhaps instead of giving your opinion on MTG's research you will counter research of your own?
-
I went and back and looked at some of your threads like this on the JFK Education Forum. Do you just copy and paste these conspiracy diatribes from place to place? Either way you're repeating a lot of stuff that has very little basis in reality .. your theories require all of the evidence to be fake, which is simply not believable.
MTG seems to enjoy playing doctor.
-
Perhaps instead of giving your opinion on MTG's research you will counter research of your own?
It would be charitable to call MTG's clusters "research".
-
Thanks for proving my point.
It would be charitable to call MTG's clusters "research".
-
Perhaps instead of giving your opinion on MTG's research you will counter research of your own?
I hate to bust your burble, but MTG doesn't do research. He collects conspiracy nuggets and weaves them into hyperbolic conspiracy narratives like a crazed CT televangelist. The JFKA medical evidence has been subjected to enough discussion and debate by genuine medical, ballistic and forensic experts for six decades, and they and their fans have arrived at such a bewildering mishmash of hopelessly conflicting interpretations, that one can weave almost any narrative one wishes. Some of it is interesting and genuinely puzzling, but in the absence of any consensus and any medical expertise on my part I decline to assemble hyperbolic narratives telling others what is IMPOSSIBLE! UNDENIABLE! UNSOLVABLE! MUST BE BELIEVED! and CAN'T BE REFUTED!!! "Research," as MTG's hero Paul Hoch himself pointed out, consists in working from primary source documents - not assembling dubious secondary sources and then compiling self-serving but fallacious appeals to authority.
-
Thanks for your opinion. Where's your counter research to dispute his?
-
Perhaps instead of giving your opinion on MTG's research you will counter research of your own?
Oh, yes! You hit the nail on the head!
Mark my words: They will do everything but provide any specifics in response to the facts I've presented. They will offer a myriad of excuses for their ducking and dodging, but they will never get around to engaging me on a single one of the facts I've documented.
-
Thanks for your opinion. Where's your counter research to dispute his?
Look at the roster of characters to whom MTG refers you: Mantik, Horne, Hornberger. These are 33rd-degree, card-carrying, one-dimensional, believe-anything CT proselytizers. The late John Hunt, indefatigable document hound, was a purchasing manager at Jamestown Distributors, purveyors of building a maintenance products; his essay relies heavily on Mantik. I don't mean to demean any of these individuals, but fallacious appeals to fantastically biased "authorities" such as these are not what research looks like.
For an entirely CT-oriented but at least somewhat more balanced discussion, I kind of like Gary Aguilar's "How Five Investigations Into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong," https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm. What he means by "got it wrong," of course, is that all five investigations reached conclusions CTers don't like. I have no problem acknowledging legitimate puzzles and conflicts in the evidence, but MTG's work is neither research nor balanced discussion.
-
You keep proving my point. Where is your research that counters his? He went into detail on it but I've yet to see you or anyone refute it. I'm done asking for the counters because It's multiple times with the same takes. Several people in here are more interested in a mob mentality of attacking the person instead of the content.
Look at the roster of characters to whom MTG refers you: Mantik, Horne, Hornberger. These are 33rd-degree, card-carrying, one-dimensional, believe-anything CT proselytizers. The late John Hunt, indefatigable document hound, was a purchasing manager at Jamestown Distributors, purveyors of building a maintenance products; his essay relies heavily on Mantik. I don't mean to demean any of these individuals, but fallacious appeals to fantastically biased "authorities" such as these are not what research looks like.
For an entirely CT-oriented but at least somewhat more balanced discussion, I kind of like Gary Aguilar's "How Five Investigations Into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong," https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm. What he means by "got it wrong," of course, is that all five investigations reached conclusions CTers don't like. I have no problem acknowledging legitimate puzzles and conflicts in the evidence, but MTG's work is neither research nor balanced discussion.
-
You keep proving my point. Where is your research that counters his? He went into detail on it but I've yet to see you or anyone refute it. I'm done asking for the counters because It's multiple times with the same takes. Several people in here are more interested in a mob mentality of attacking the person instead of the content.
Because I am a kindly and patient sort, I will humor you and MTG to the tune of one more post. I have investigated some 20 or so nuggets of conspiracy gospel. My batting average is 1.000. Not one - not one - has withstood scrutiny. Exposing each of these has been an absurd amount of work, totally out of proportion to what it was worth. If I were billing at my hourly rate when I was a lawyer, each of these would have been a $15K project. Moreover, the exercise was entirely futile. Exposing the factoid changed nothing. It went right being a nugget of conspiracy gospel. By the fifth factoid or so, I accepted that I was doing this for my own self-amusement and mental exercise.
What MTG offers is neither "research" nor "facts." It's a bunch of conspiracy factoids supported by fallacious appeals to dubious CT "authorities." My normal factoid-busting procedure would be to take one of his nuggets and examine it closely to see if it withstands scrutiny. BUT I'M NOT GONNA DO IT. Why? Because MTG has established to my satisfaction that he is 33rd-degree CT nutcase. He is not worth the amount of time and effort that it takes to expose ONE LITTLE FACTOID. If you and MTG want to pretend that this means those of us who decline to engage with him are "hiding" and "avoiding" his "facts," I really don't give a steaming bowl of bat guano. I'm frankly mystified that anyone wastes time engaging with him; it just gives a veneer of credibility to his crap.
The stuff he raises here has been masturbated over ad nauseam. Here is one of many threads from the Ed Forum where these topics are discussed: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/ As usual, Pat Speer - who knows 100X more about the medical evidence than I do - ends up being the nemesis of those who, like MTG, think the autopsy x-rays and photos are either altered or fake. MTG insists the brain photos are not JFK's head. If that sounds plausible to you, fine. It doesn't sound to me like a factoid worth busting even if I had the medical expertise to do so. The one point Pat makes is precisely what I made above: there is virtually no area of the medical evidence as to which there is a consensus, so how would one go about "refuting" MTG's supposed "facts" even if one wanted to attempt to do so?
MTG's contributions are just one-dimensional CT screeds. As stated, his reliance on body-alteration fanatics like Mantik, Horne and Hornberger - whose stuff strikes me as pulp science fiction, unworthy of being taken seriously - should tell you something. A genuine contribution would be to carefully collect what everyone who has considered the autopsy x-rays and photos has had to say about them and perhaps have a new group of qualified experts consider the issue and try to make sense of the differing opinions. As a former lawyer, I can tell you that real research is a hell of a lot of work and not what MTG does. I once wrote a completely inconsequential law review article that ended up being published in the obscure Idaho Law Review; I took two weeks off of work to finish the silly thing and just about worked myself into a breakdown. MTG wouldn't know research if it bit him in the butt.
-
I don't come here for humor. What entails your research to dispute his? I've yet to see you do it or show it in this thread. I don't know why I'm responding because it appears you're just arrogant enough to feel like it's benneath you to counter. How about countering instead of the personal attacks? We should just assume everyone on this site is familiar with your research on this subject?
Definition of Research. Research is a systematic and intentional process of investigation designed to discover new knowledge, validate existing theories, or solve specific problems. It relies on structured methodologies to collect, analyze, and interpret data, ultimately contributing to a broader or generalizable understanding of a topic
-
I don't come here for humor. What entails your research to dispute his? I've yet to see you do it or show it in this thread. I don't know why I'm responding because it appears you're just arrogant enough to feel like it's benneath you to counter. How about countering instead of the personal attacks? We should just assume everyone on this site is familiar with your research on this subject?
Definition of Research. Research is a systematic and intentional process of investigation designed to discover new knowledge, validate existing theories, or solve specific problems. It relies on structured methodologies to collect, analyze, and interpret data, ultimately contributing to a broader or generalizable understanding of a topic
Lance Payette has no published research to cite. He's published nothing on the JFK case--no books, no articles, online or otherwise. He maintains no website on the case. He merely bounces around from forum to forum on his crusade to uphold his minority view that JFK was killed by a lone gunman.
On previous occasions, he has actually said that anyone who believes JFK was killed by a conspiracy suffers from a form of mental illness because they must have a malfunctioning brain, defective neural pathways, a warped mind, etc., etc.
-
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not the facts. No different in JFKA.
-
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not the facts. No different in JFKA.
Oh, I agree. The issue is that Lance Payette not only pretends to be an expert but goes to the extreme of questioning the mental capacity and integrity of anyone who disagrees with him, including genuine experts who've been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and who've been studying the JFK case for years.
Recently he accused Dr. David Mantik of being a "character" who sees things that no one else sees, when in fact many scholars have endorsed Dr. Mantik's research and when Dr. Mantik is one of the most highly qualified experts to ever examine the JFK case. Payette also recently made unsavory attacks against Greg Doudna, one of the most honest, respected, and careful JFKA researchers of all time, accusing him of having "loose screws," of being part of the "lunatic fringe," and of not caring if his argument "makes sense."
Such unseemly verbiage is considered inexcusable and juvenile even coming from a genuine expert; it is even more discrediting and inexcusable coming from an amateur who hasn't published a single book or article on the case and who doesn't even maintain a website on the subject.
-
Oh, I agree. The issue is that Lance Payette not only pretends to be an expert but goes to the extreme of questioning the mental capacity and integrity of anyone who disagrees with him, including genuine experts who've been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and who've been studying the JFK case for years.
Recently he accused Dr. David Mantik of being a "character" who sees things that no one else sees, when in fact many scholars have endorsed Dr. Mantik's research and when Dr. Mantik is one of the most highly qualified experts to ever examine the JFK case. Payette also recently made unsavory attacks against Greg Doudna, one of the most honest, respected, and careful JFKA researchers of all time, accusing him of having "loose screws," of being part of the "lunatic fringe," and of not caring if his argument "makes sense."
Such unseemly verbiage is considered inexcusable and juvenile even coming from a genuine expert; it is even more discrediting and inexcusable coming from an amateur who hasn't published a single book or article on the case and who doesn't even maintain a website on the subject.
You just accused someone else of being an amateur??? My irony meter is starting to smoke. I think you fried the motherboard with that statement.
Just what do you think you have accomplished over the past 35 years of pontificating on the JFKA. Your BS hasn't improved one iota. It has just become more voluminous. 50 years from now, nobody will even know or care about your efforts. For that matter, few people even care now.
-
You just accused someone else of being an amateur??? My irony meter is starting to smoke. I think you fried the motherboard with that statement.
Actually, my point was that if someone is falsely claiming to be an expert when they haven't published a single book or article on the case and don't even maintain a website on the case, they shouldn't spew extreme attacks on genuine experts and respected researchers, and they should especially avoid going so far off the deep end as to claim that anyone who disagrees with them suffers from mental illness.
Just what do you think you have accomplished over the past 35 years of pontificating on the JFKA. Your BS hasn't improved one iota. It has just become more voluminous. 50 years from now, nobody will even know or care about your efforts. For that matter, few people even care now.
You really are a rude, petty, angry person, aren't you? You wouldn't know valid research from a hole in the ground. You are one of the most poorly read, biased, and unserious WC apologists on the Internet. I have already caught you in so many inexcusable gaffes and blunders that I've long since lost count of them, but since you never admit when you're wrong, you just keep on plugging away anyway.
-
Actually, my point was that if someone is falsely claiming to be an expert when they haven't published a single book or article on the case and don't even maintain a website on the case, they shouldn't spew extreme attacks on genuine experts and respected researchers, and they should especially avoid going so far off the deep end as to claim that anyone who disagrees with them suffers from mental illness.
You really are a rude, petty, angry person, aren't you?
You just called me a rude, petty, angry person. You don't see the irony in that statement? You have hurled other insults my way as well but it doesn't bother me in the least. I am hardly angry. I participate here for amusement only. I have enough aggravation in my life without having to search for more in online forums.
Rude? Guilty as charged. I believe in speaking my mind and I don't try to sugar coat it. I'm as subtle as a punch in the mouth when expressing my opinions.
You wouldn't know valid research from a hole in the ground. You are one of the most poorly read, biased, and unserious WC apologists on the Internet. I have already caught you in so many inexcusable gaffes and blunders that I've long since lost count of them, but since you never admit when you're wrong, you just keep on plugging away anyway.
I know enough to easily shoot down your silly ideas. Not that it's hard to do that. There really isn't much sport in it.
-
An important point that I did not include in the OP is the fact that the autopsy evidence shows two separate, disconnected wound paths in the brain, i.e., the subcortical and cortical damage to JFK's brain. There is no wound path or fragment trail between these two wound paths—in other words, these are two separate, unconnected wound paths. The cortical damage is near the very top of the skull; it is close to the high fragment trail and is on the outer (or cortical) surface of the brain. The subcortical wound path is nearly 2 inches below the cortical damage and spans the length of the brain from front to back. The first expert to note these two separate wound paths was Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroscientist who specialized in neuroanatomy.
British researcher Martin Hay has said the following on this issue:
. . . There were two separate and distinct areas of damage to the President’s brain, in the cortical and subcortical regions, and “no evidence of continuity” between the two. “An entrance wound located in the posteromedial parietal area cannot account for the subcortical damage. An entrance wound in the occipital region, as determined by the autopsy prosectors, may account for the subcortical damage but cannot account for the dorsolateral cortical damage.” As Dr. Riley concluded, “The cortical and subcortical wounds are anatomically distinct and could not have been produced by a single bullet. The fundamental conclusion is inescapable: John Kennedy’s head wounds could not have been caused by one bullet.” (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/robert-a-wagner-the-assassination-of-jfk-perspectives-half-a-century-later (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/robert-a-wagner-the-assassination-of-jfk-perspectives-half-a-century-later))
The cortical damage was described in detail by the HSCA FPP (7 HSCA 131). The subcortical damage was described in detail by the autopsy doctors in the supplemental autopsy report (CE 391, p. 1). Incredibly, however, the HSCA FPP never specifically described the subcortical damage, and the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage! More on this in a minute.
In his article “The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” Dr. Riley explained the problem posed for the lone-gunman theory by these two separate areas of damage:
In addition to the cortical damage just described, there was massive subcortical damage. This subcortical damage was far more extensive in terms of volume of tissue damaged than the damage to the superficial cerebral cortex. In non-technical language, in addition to damage to the outside layer of the brain, there was massive damage deep inside as well, extending the entire anterior-posterior length of the brain. . . .
To understand this damage, it is important to keep several points in mind. First, when a bullet passes through the brain, it causes many types of damage in addition to direct mechanical damage from the missile. The multiple factors that can cause this additional damage need not be described here. The point, however, is that this wound may be viewed as a "cylinder of disruption" with a radius of approximately one inch that extends from back to front and passes through the center of the brain. . . .
Even the most superficial examination of the evidence demonstrates that the high entrance wound cannot account for all of the posterior subcortical damage, yet the Panel [the HSCA FPP] provides no explanation or analysis of the subcortical wounds. It is difficult to understand how a panel of competent forensic pathologists could have ignored the subcortical damage in their report. Clearly, the "high" entrance wound does not and cannot account for the observed subcortical damage. (“The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade, March 1993, pp. 10-11, 14, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Riley Joe/Item 04.pdf))
Dr. Riley phrased it this way in his article “What Struck John”:
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 [i.e., the EOP entry site’s trajectory].
The exit wound is not and cannot be located where the HSCA Forensics Panel places it. Similarly, the autopsy photographs show intact cerebral cortex at where government panels have claimed there was a "high" entrance wound. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html) (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)))
Dr. Riley also noted that the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report cannot account of for all the fragments and the damage to the cerebral cortex (i.e., the outer layer of brain tissue/the cerebrum’s outer layer):
The fragments distributed in and the damage to the cerebral cortex cannot be due to the shot described by Humes et al.; the wounds are discontinuous. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html))
Here is one of Dr. Riley’s diagrams of the subcortical damage from his article “The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries”:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3TWcg1KIC_lyQNEJoCpxrsB5zf-ozZQ/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f3TWcg1KIC_lyQNEJoCpxrsB5zf-ozZQ/view?usp=sharing)
Curiously, but not surprisingly, the HSCA FPP gave only a brief, superficial description of the subcortical damage, a description that, incredibly, gave the reader no idea that the damage was subcortical, i.e., that it was well below the cortical damage (7 HSCA 129). On the other hand, the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage, just as they said nothing about the high fragment trail.
Why these glaring omissions? Because the HSCA FPP and the autopsy doctors were only willing to acknowledge one bullet strike to the head and thus only one entry site. To make matters worse, the HSCA FPP refused to deal with evidence that contradicted the now-debunked cowlick entry site, and the autopsy doctors refused to deal with evidence that contradicted the EOP entry site.
Some might be curious to know what leading WC apologists have said about the two clearly separate cortical and subcortical wound paths in the brain. The answer: Nothing. Not one word. Vincent Bugliosi said nothing about them in his error-riddled tome Reclaiming History. Similarly, Gerald Posner says nothing about them in his mistitled propaganda book Case Closed.
-
An important point that I did not include in the OP is the fact that the autopsy evidence shows two separate, disconnected wound paths in the brain, i.e., the subcortical and cortical damage to JFK's brain. There is no wound path or fragment trail between these two wound paths—in other words, these are two separate, unconnected wound paths. The cortical damage is near the very top of the skull; it is close to the high fragment trail and is on the outer (or cortical) surface of the brain. The subcortical wound path is nearly 2 inches below the cortical damage and spans the length of the brain from front to back. The first expert to note these two separate wound paths was Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroscientist who specialized in neuroanatomy.
British researcher Martin Hay has said the following on this issue:
Since you have identified him as a research and not an expert in forensic pathology, I am going to assume he is not the latter. That means he is no more qualified to discuss the medical evidence than you or I.
-
Since you have identified him as a research and not an expert in forensic pathology, I am going to assume he is not the latter. That means he is no more qualified to discuss the medical evidence than you or I.
You look for any excuse to avoid dealing with evidence you can't explain. Obviously, Hay was summarizing the findings of Dr. Joseph N. Riley, a neuroscientist who specialized in neuroanatomy and neuropathology and who determined from the autopsy materials that two bullets hit JFK's head. Dr. Riley had several papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals dealing with neuroscience. He was a professor of neuroscience at the University of Florida. He wrote two articles that presented evidence that two bullets struck Kennedy's head.
Your side has never had anybody with Dr. Riley's qualification in neuroscience, just like your side has nobody with Dr. Mantik's qualifications in the science of optical-density analysis of skull x-rays, nor anybody with the qualifications of the HSCA's seven acoustical experts in acoustical science (an additional BBN acoustical scientist wrote one of the appendices for Dr. Josiah Thompson's 2021 book Last Second in Dallas).
Speaking of the NAS/NRC panel, are you aware that Dr. Thompson reveals in his book that when the NRC/NAS panel sent BBN acoustical scientist Dr. James Barger a draft of their report, Dr. Barger replied with an 8-page critique, but the panel declined to publish his critique and did not address, or even mention, his objections in their report? Humm. . . .
-
You look for any excuse to avoid dealing with evidence you can't explain.
I keep telling you this but it's like talking to a wall. I don't need to explain the medical evidence. I leave that to people who are qualified to do that. That doesn't include you, but that doesn't stop you from throwing your amateurish two cents into the conversation.
Obviously, Hay was summarizing the findings of Dr. Joseph N. Riley, a neuroscientist who specialized in neuroanatomy and neuropathology and who determined from the autopsy materials that two bullets hit JFK's head. Dr. Riley had several papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals dealing with neuroscience. He was a professor of neuroscience at the University of Florida. He wrote two articles that presented evidence that two bullets struck Kennedy's head.
You love to cite people who offer opinions outside their area of expertise. None of the people you cite are forensic medical examiners which is a specific branch of medicine which requires skill sets outside of the area of radiation oncology or neuroanatomy. Neither of these fields involve the examination of gunshot wounds or more specifically, gunshot wounds to the head. How many medico-legal autopsies has Dr. Mantik performed. How many has Dr. Riley performed. Without even looking it up I'm going to take a flyer and say combined, the total number is less than one.
Your side has never had anybody with Dr. Riley's qualification in neuroscience,
Why would my "side" need or want such a person?
just like your side has nobody with Dr. Mantik's qualifications in the science of optical-density analysis of skull x-rays,
Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist. That is quite different from a radiologist who is an expert in reading x-rays. In fact, a radiation oncologist will often consult with a radiologist in determining the best treatment for a cancer patient under their care. Cancer care is Mantik's area of expertise. The field of medicine has many different specialties and being an expert in one does not make one an expert ina another. You are always citing people offering opinions outside their area of expertise. When your toilet gets clogged, do you call in an electrician?
nor anybody with the qualifications of the HSCA's seven acoustical experts in acoustical science (an additional BBN acoustical scientist wrote one of the appendices for Dr. Josiah Thompson's 2021 book Last Second in Dallas).
It never surprises me when a CT clings to the discredited acoustical analysis since they have no real evidence on their side.
Speaking of the NAS/NRC panel, are you aware that Dr. Thompson reveals in his book that when the NRC/NAS panel sent BBN acoustical scientist Dr. James Barger a draft of their report, Dr. Barger replied with an 8-page critique, but the panel declined to publish his critique and did not address, or even mention, his objections in their report? Humm. . . .
Barger's team only concluded there was a 50% probability that the recording showed a shot from the GK and that the impulses on the tape could not be proven to be gunshots. That's based solely on the acoustics and doesn't take into account the cross talk from channel 2 which indicated the shots were not made during the recording or the photo evidence that there was no motorcycle at the spot on Houston St. that Weiss and Aschkenasy presumed the motorcycle had to be.
-
I keep telling you this but it's like talking to a wall. I don't need to explain the medical evidence. I leave that to people who are qualified to do that.
No you don't. You cherry-pick your experts. You pretend to be qualified to decide who is a medical expert and who is not. For days on end you kept citing the HSCA FPP as an unquestionable final authority on the medical evidence--until I proved to you that several of the FPP's findings refute your version of the shooting.
Yes, you do keep making the pitiful, embarrassing argument that you don't need to explain the medical evidence, and I keep pointing out why that argument is ludicrous and why it constitutes nothing but a bunch of ducking and dodging, but you just keep repeating it without refuting my counterarguments.
You love to cite people who offer opinions outside their area of expertise. None of the people you cite are forensic medical examiners which is a specific branch of medicine which requires skill sets outside of the area of radiation oncology or neuroanatomy. Neither of these fields involve the examination of gunshot wounds or more specifically, gunshot wounds to the head.
You're still peddling this silly, inane dodge? You assume that forensic pathologists--well, those who agree with you--are the source of all knowledge when it comes to gunshot wounds, ignoring the fact that they are usually not experts in radiology, in physics, in neurology, in neuroanatomy, and in ballistics, much less in the recent science of optical-density measurement, which field did not begin to be pioneered until the 1950s and was still in its infancy in the 1960s.
Forensic pathologists are regular doctors (M.D.s) who have completed a fellowship in forensic pathology after they've been certified in anatomical or clinical pathology.
Deep down you must know that it is untenable and evasive to pretend that the findings of wound ballistics experts, radiologists, physicists, radiation oncologists, neurologists, and neuroscientists in the JFK case can be ignored just because they're not forensic pathologists. Your side still cites the research and experiments of Dr. John Lattimer, Dr. Robert Artwohl, Dr. Piziali, even though they were not forensic pathologists.
But, if you want to talk about forensic experts, let's do that.
Have you ever heard Dr. Milton Helpern, regarded as one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th century? He flatly rejected the SBT.
How about Dr. F. W. Enos? Heard of him? He was the forensic pathologist who served as the consultant to the CBS SBT wound-ballistics test. After setting up and conducting the test, he concluded that the test "disproved" the SBT and said the SBT was "highly improbable."
How about Dr. Robert Kirschner? Heard of him? The Lancet, a leading medical journal, described him as "a pioneering forensic pathologist." He was one of the ARRB's three forensic consultants. He said the SBT was "very dubious."
How about Dr. Halbert Fillinger? Heard of him? He was a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, considered a "giant" in the field, who was known for handling the most serious cases. "The Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" was named after him to recognize outstanding contributors to forensic science. Well, guess what? He scoffed at the idea that an FMJ bullet would have deposited a single fragment on the rear outer table of JFK's skull. He added that FMJ bullets will barely even leave any residue at their entry sites, much less a fragment.
How about Dr. Doug Ubelaker? Heard of him? He was a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution and was another one of the ARRB's three forensic experts. He said the head damage in the autopsy photos indicated the bullet hit in the front and traveled from front to back.
How about Dr. Joseph Dolce? Heard of him? He was the Army's most knowledgeable expert on wound ballistics in 1964. Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, for three years, so, needless to say, he dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. In 1964, he was the chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. When the WC asked the Army to provide a wound ballistics expert to be the Commission's chief expert on the subject, the Army selected Dr. Dolce. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case. He had much more experience than the WC's two other wound ballistics consultants, Dr. Alfred Olivier and Dr. Arthur Dziemian. Dr. Dolce said the SBT was "impossible" and that the wound ballistics test proved this.
When Dr. Dolce informed the WC that the tests proved the SBT was "impossible," they ignored him and began to rely on the more compliant and less qualified Olivier and Dziemian. That's why Olivier and Dziemian were asked to testify but Dolce was not.
I know you know something about Dr. Robert Shaw, who was Connally's chest surgeon. Do you know that before he operated on Connally, he had operated on more than 1,000 gunshot wounds of the chest? He, too, flatly rejected the SBT.
Have you heard of Dr. John Nichols? As a professor of pathology at the University of Kansas, he trained forensic pathologists. He, too, flatly rejected the SBT and argued that the head-shot bullet could not have been an FMJ missile.
How many medico-legal autopsies has Dr. Mantik performed. How many has Dr. Riley performed. Without even looking it up I'm going to take a flyer and say combined, the total number is less than one. Why would my "side" need or want such a person?
This is more insincere evasion. A radiation oncologist who is an expert in optical-density (OD) measurement and who is also trained in radiology and holds a doctorate in physics does not need to have performed a medico-legal autopsy to use OD measurements to determine if objects in a skull x-ray are metallic or to determine the thickness of bone in a skull x-ray. You must be kidding.
Similarly, a recognized expert in neuroanatomy does not need to have performed a medico-legal autopsy to determine the location and relationship of wound paths in autopsy photos of a brain. If anything, a forensic pathologist will consult with a neuroscientist when it comes to such matters.
Lattimer, Piziali, and Artwohl never performed an autopsy, but you guys still cite them as authorities on JFK's wounds and wound reactions. Lattimer was a urologist. Artwohl was a general surgeon. Piziali was a ballistics expert.
Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist. That is quite different from a radiologist who is an expert in reading x-rays. In fact, a radiation oncologist will often consult with a radiologist in determining the best treatment for a cancer patient under their care. Cancer care is Mantik's area of expertise. The field of medicine has many different specialties and being an expert in one does not make one an expert ina another. You are always citing people offering opinions outside their area of expertise. When your toilet gets clogged, do you call in an electrician?
How many times are you going to ignore the fact that Dr. Mantik is also certified in radiology? How many times are you going to ignore the fact that radiation oncologists use OD measurements as part of their job? How many times are you going to ignore the fact that radiation oncologists are trained in reading x-rays? That's part of the reason they receive their certification from the American Board of Radiology.
BTW, Dr. Randy Robertson, a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, has concluded that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays indicate that two bullets hit JFK's head. And, several of the HSCA's radiology/forensic consultants said the x-rays show missing frontal bone, but Baden and the FPP majority ignored this fact and claimed the frontal bone was intact.
It never surprises me when a CT clings to the discredited acoustical analysis since they have no real evidence on their side.
You have no business even talking about the acoustical evidence. You haven't read one page of the HSCA's extensive materials on the acoustical evidence. You haven't read even one scholarly defense of the acoustical evidence. You haven't even read the NRC/NAS panel's report, which you cited as evidence against the acoustical evidence.
You did not realize that the NAS panel admitted that there was a 93% probability that the timing-moving correlations identified by the BBN acoustical scientists occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern was gunfire from the grassy knoll.
Barger's team only concluded there was a 50% probability that the recording showed a shot from the GK and that the impulses on the tape could not be proven to be gunshots. That's based solely on the acoustics and doesn't take into account the cross talk from channel 2 which indicated the shots were not made during the recording or the photo evidence that there was no motorcycle at the spot on Houston St. that Weiss and Aschkenasy presumed the motorcycle had to be.
You have no clue what you are talking about, and you refuse to read anything that refutes what you want to believe on this issue. You just keep repeating these debunked talking points that you've read on some lone-gunman websites. I've read every critique of the acoustical evidence, but you haven't read any research that defends that evidence, and it shows.
The 50% probability finding was a preliminary finding that was made before they conducted the test firing in Dealey Plaza and before they had the BBN research reviewed by Queens College acoustical experts Weiss and Aschkenasy. You'd know this if you had bothered to read a single scholarly defense of the acoustical evidence.
The myth of "cross talk" from Channel 2 was answered by Dr. Barger many years ago, and new research done by BBN scientists in 2019-2020 proves that the Decker transmission is not crosstalk from Channel 2 but is an overdub resulting from the copying process.
Of course, not knowing any better, you repeat the claim that there was no motorcycle in position to record the dictabelt in Dealey Plaza. If there was no motorcycle in position on Houston Street, how do you explain the fact that even the NRC/NAS panel admitted that there's a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations between the dictabelt impulses and the test-firing impulses occurred because the dictabelt was recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting?
If there was no motorcycle in position to record the dictabelt in Dealey Plaza, how did N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes, in the correct order and interval, get recorded on the dictabelt? How is it that the N-waves occurred only in the gunshot impulse patterns? How did windshield distortions get recorded on the dictabelt only when the motorcycle was in position to record them and were not recorded when the motorcycle was not in position to record them? Figure the odds of just those distortions alone happening by coincidence.
I know you'll never read it, but for the sake of others, I again recommend my introduction to the acoustical evidence:
"The HSCA's Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view?usp=sharing
-
No you don't. You cherry-pick your experts.
The experts you claim I cherry picked were all experts in forensic pathology. I have already acknowledged that that original team were a poor choice to perform a medico-legal autopsy but that's a mistake we just have to live with. Despite their inexperience, that were able to gather enough medical evidence so that a panel of the most respected medical experts in the country were able to conclude that JFK was shot twice with both shots coming from behind him. That dovetails with all the forensic evidence we have that Oswald was the shooter.
You on the other hand rarely if ever cite forensic pathologists to support your claims.
You pretend to be qualified to decide who is a medical expert and who is not.
I guess I have this goofy idea that forensic medical examiners are the most qualified people to assess the evidence from a medico-legal autopsy. You on the other hand think a radiation oncologist is well suited for that job.
For days on end you kept citing the HSCA FPP as an unquestionable final authority on the medical evidence--until I proved to you that several of the FPP's findings refute your version of the shooting.
My version of the shooting is that JFK was shot twice from behind with the shot to the back of the head being the one that killed him. Tell me which member(s) of the FPP dispute that.
Yes, you do keep making the pitiful, embarrassing argument that you don't need to explain the medical evidence, and I keep pointing out why that argument is ludicrous and why it constitutes nothing but a bunch of ducking and dodging, but you just keep repeating it without refuting my counterarguments.
I'm not at all surprised that you find a logical argument to be ludicrous.
You're still peddling this silly, inane dodge? [/quote}
So you think it is an inane dodge for me to acknowledge I have no expertise in the field of forensic pathology. The truth is that neither you nor I are any more qualified to analyze the medical evidence than the guy who mopped up the autopsy room floor. Your tortured analysis and reliance on people who have no expertise in the field of forensic pathology demonstrates that fact quite nicely.
You assume that forensic pathologists--well, those who agree with you--are the source of all knowledge when it comes to gunshot wounds,
They are just far more knowledgeable than a radiation oncologist.
ignoring the fact that they are usually not experts in radiology,
Neither is a radiation oncologist.
in physics, in neurology, in neuroanatomy, and in ballistics, much less in the recent science of optical-density measurement,
People in those fields are not experts in forensic medicine either unless they have been trained and experienced in that field as well. To the best of my knowledge, none of the people you cite meet that qualification, but you don't care. All you care is they offered a non-expert opinion that fits the narrative you are trying to peddle.
which field did not begin to be pioneered until the 1950s and was still in its infancy in the 1960s.
So tell us how an expert in that field is qualified to analyse the medical evidence.
You don't seem to understand that the field of medicine has a wide range of specialties, each requiring a unique skill set. When I go see my primary care physician, he has a general knowledge of medicine as a whole but when I have a specific condition, he sends me to a specialist. If I'm having an issue with my prostate (which I have in recent years) he doesn't send me to a gynecologist.
Forensic pathologists are regular doctors (M.D.s) who have completed a fellowship in forensic pathology after they've been certified in anatomical or clinical pathology.
Yes they have. Radiation oncologists and gynecologists have no specialized training in the field of forensic pathology. So why do you keep citing people outside that area of expertise?
Let's put it this way. If any of the people you've cited outside the field of forensic pathology were summoned to give testimony about a medico-legal autopsy, I doubt there is a judge in the land who would approve of that witness.
Deep down you must know that it is untenable and evasive to pretend that the findings of wound ballistics experts, radiologists, physicists, radiation oncologists, neurologists, and neuroscientists in the JFK case can be ignored just because they're not forensic pathologists. Your side still cites the research and experiments of Dr. John Lattimer, Dr. Robert Artwohl, Dr. Piziali, even though they were not forensic pathologists.
It's quite easy to ignore people pontificating about fields for which they have no expertise. If I was having trouble with my care, I would ignore the advice of my plumber unless I knew he also had training in auto mechanics.
But, if you want to talk about forensic experts, let's do that.
That would be nice for a change.
Have you ever heard Dr. Milton Helpern, regarded as one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th century? He flatly rejected the SBT.
The issues of the SBT have to do ballistics, not forensic pathology. Cyril Wecht's objections to the SBT aren't based on anything in the medical evidence. They are based on his viewing of the Z-film.
How about Dr. F. W. Enos? Heard of him? He was the forensic pathologist who served as the consultant to the CBS SBT wound-ballistics test. After setting up and conducting the test, he concluded that the test "disproved" the SBT and said the SBT was "highly improbable."
How about Dr. Robert Kirschner? Heard of him? The Lancet, a leading medical journal, described him as "a pioneering forensic pathologist." He was one of the ARRB's three forensic consultants. He said the SBT was "very dubious."
Since you don't bother to tell us why any of these men disputed the SBT, there is really nothing for me to comment on.
How about Dr. Halbert Fillinger? Heard of him? He was a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, considered a "giant" in the field, who was known for handling the most serious cases. "The Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" was named after him to recognize outstanding contributors to forensic science. Well, guess what? He scoffed at the idea that an FMJ bullet would have deposited a single fragment on the rear outer table of JFK's skull. He added that FMJ bullets will barely even leave any residue at their entry sites, much less a fragment.
That is a question of ballistics, not forensic pathology. He is not commenting on the wounds but on the behavior of a FMJ bullet. Once again you cite opinions of people who haven't stayed in their lane.
How about Dr. Doug Ubelaker? Heard of him? He was a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution and was another one of the ARRB's three forensic experts. He said the head damage in the autopsy photos indicated the bullet hit in the front and traveled from front to back.
A forensic anthropologist is not the same as a forensic pathologist. How many medico-legal autopsies has he performed in his career?
Another swing and a miss by you.
How about Dr. Joseph Dolce? Heard of him? He was the Army's most knowledgeable expert on wound ballistics in 1964. Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, for three years, so, needless to say, he dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. In 1964, he was the chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. When the WC asked the Army to provide a wound ballistics expert to be the Commission's chief expert on the subject, the Army selected Dr. Dolce. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case. He had much more experience than the WC's two other wound ballistics consultants, Dr. Alfred Olivier and Dr. Arthur Dziemian. Dr. Dolce said the SBT was "impossible" and that the wound ballistics test proved this.
Again, you don't tell us why he said the SBT was impossible. Dr. Cyril Wecht also said it was impossible but when cross examined by Vincent Bugliosi, he couldn't give a medical reason for his opinion.
When Dr. Dolce informed the WC that the tests proved the SBT was "impossible," they ignored him and began to rely on the more compliant and less qualified Olivier and Dziemian. That's why Olivier and Dziemian were asked to testify but Dolce was not.
I guess Dolce didn't give the WC a medical reason the SBT was impossible either.
I know you know something about Dr. Robert Shaw, who was Connally's chest surgeon. Do you know that before he operated on Connally, he had operated on more than 1,000 gunshot wounds of the chest? He, too, flatly rejected the SBT.
Again, you cite somebody outside his field of expertise. How the hell would Shaw know whether the bullet that had hit JBC had first struck JFK. Did he give an explanation for why the entrance wound on JBC's back was elongated.
Have you heard of Dr. John Nichols? As a professor of pathology at the University of Kansas, he trained forensic pathologists. He, too, flatly rejected the SBT and argued that the head-shot bullet could not have been an FMJ missile.
So now you cite a pathologist on a question of ballistics. Brilliant.
This is more insincere evasion. A radiation oncologist who is an expert in optical-density (OD) measurement and who is also trained in radiology and holds a doctorate in physics does not need to have performed a medico-legal autopsy to use OD measurements to determine if objects in a skull x-ray are metallic or to determine the thickness of bone in a skull x-ray. You must be kidding.
You still don't seem to understand that a radiation oncologist is not an expert in radiology. I guess you think because the words are similar, they are one and the same.
Similarly, a recognized expert in neuroanatomy does not need to have performed a medico-legal autopsy to determine the location and relationship of wound paths in autopsy photos of a brain. If anything, a forensic pathologist will consult with a neuroscientist when it comes to such matters.
I'm afraid you are wrong again. I lost count but I think you are 0 for 47. So far.
Lattimer, Piziali, and Artwohl never performed an autopsy, but you guys still cite them as authorities on JFK's wounds and wound reactions. Lattimer was a urologist. Artwohl was a general surgeon. Piziali was a ballistics expert.
Funny you should mention Bob Artwohl. He came to our Prodigy forum as a CT but converted to the LN side. He credited some of the arguments I had made on the board for changing his mind.
I don't remember ever citing any of the men you mentioned for their opinions on the autopsy.
How many times are you going to ignore the fact that Dr. Mantik is also certified in radiology?
Is that a fact? No mention of that on his WebMD page.
https://doctor.webmd.com/doctor/david-mantik-41216fdc-e614-4387-8f79-f29b65a264c9-overview
His specialties are family medicine and oncology. It says, "His dual expertise allows him to provide comprehensive primary care while also treating patients with cancer diagnoses." No mention of radiology.
You are not 0 for 48.
How many times are you going to ignore the fact that radiation oncologists use OD measurements as part of their job?
Yes, they do that after consulting with radiologists.
How many times are you going to ignore the fact that radiation oncologists are trained in reading x-rays?
No, that's what radiologists are trained to do. I'm sure he has experience looking at x-rays, but that's not his field of expertise.
0 for 49.
That's part of the reason they receive their certification from the American Board of Radiology.
This from the ABR website:
"Doctors practicing in the field of Radiology specialize in Diagnostic Radiology, Interventional Radiology, or Radiation Oncology."
Do you happen see the word "OR". It doesn't say "AND". Being trained in one of these disciplines doesn't make one an expert in one of the others. I suppose its possible for someone to be certified in more than one of these specialties, but Mantiks's WebMD page makes no mention of a certification as a radiologist. One family medicine and oncology.
Your streak has extended to half a hundred.
BTW, Dr. Randy Robertson, a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, has concluded that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays indicate that two bullets hit JFK's head. And, several of the HSCA's radiology/forensic consultants said the x-rays show missing frontal bone, but Baden and the FPP majority ignored this fact and claimed the frontal bone was intact.
Part of the frontal bone was missing. The POSTERIOR of the frontal bone. That means the rear of the frontal bone. That was near the temples to use a layman's term. It was not from the forehead.
0 for 51.
You have no business even talking about the acoustical evidence. You haven't read one page of the HSCA's extensive materials on the acoustical evidence.
That takes you up to 0 for 52.
You haven't read even one scholarly defense of the acoustical evidence. You haven't even read the NRC/NAS panel's report, which you cited as evidence against the acoustical evidence.
I'll be nice and only credit you with one misstatement for this. 0 for 53.
You did not realize that the NAS panel admitted that there was a 93% probability that the timing-moving correlations identified by the BBN acoustical scientists occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern was gunfire from the grassy knoll.
You have no clue what you are talking about, and you refuse to read anything that refutes what you want to believe on this issue. You just keep repeating these debunked talking points that you've read on some lone-gunman websites. I've read every critique of the acoustical evidence, but you haven't read any research that defends that evidence, and it shows.
The 50% probability finding was a preliminary finding that was made before they conducted the test firing in Dealey Plaza and before they had the BBN research reviewed by Queens College acoustical experts Weiss and Aschkenasy. You'd know this if you had bothered to read a single scholarly defense of the acoustical evidence.
The myth of "cross talk" from Channel 2 was answered by Dr. Barger many years ago, and new research done by BBN scientists in 2019-2020 proves that the Decker transmission is not crosstalk from Channel 2 but is an overdub resulting from the copying process.
Of course, not knowing any better, you repeat the claim that there was no motorcycle in position to record the dictabelt in Dealey Plaza. If there was no motorcycle in position on Houston Street, how do you explain the fact that even the NRC/NAS panel admitted that there's a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations between the dictabelt impulses and the test-firing impulses occurred because the dictabelt was recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting?
If there was no motorcycle in position to record the dictabelt in Dealey Plaza, how did N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes, in the correct order and interval, get recorded on the dictabelt? How is it that the N-waves occurred only in the gunshot impulse patterns? How did windshield distortions get recorded on the dictabelt only when the motorcycle was in position to record them and were not recorded when the motorcycle was not in position to record them? Figure the odds of just those distortions alone happening by coincidence.
I know you'll never read it, but for the sake of others, I again recommend my introduction to the acoustical evidence:
"The HSCA's Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view?usp=sharing
You're always admonishing me for disregarding eye witness accounts. Here's what the HSCA's own report said about Officer McLain:
"Subsequent to his hearing testimony, McLain stated that he believed he turned on his siren as soon as he heard Curry's order to proceed to Parkland Hospital . He said that everyone near him had their sirens on immediately.(91) Should his memory be reliable, the broadcast of the shots during the assassination would not have been over his radio, because the sound of sirens on the tape does not come until approximately 2 minutes later. The committee believed that McLain was in error on the point of his use of his siren."
-
Yes, I've read John Corbett's latest reply. It is so loaded with evasion, distortion, deception, and error that it's not worth answering. If anyone has any questions about any of his statements, feel free to message me or post them here. Anyway, moving on. . . .
For those who might be interested, another worthwhile discussion on some of the major problems with the autopsy evidence is presented in chapter 8 of Dr. Don Thomas's 2010 book Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, & the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination. Dr. Thomas is a retired USDA research scientist. He's had over 100 articles on biology, entomology, DNA, phylogeography, and ionizing radiation published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
He discusses the impossibility of an FMJ bullet "shearing off" a sizable fragment (or any fragment) at its entry point on a skull, the photographic and x-ray evidence of a frontal shot, the conflict between the head photos and the skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, and other important issues relating to the autopsy evidence.
-
Yes, I've read John Corbett's latest reply. It is so loaded with evasion, distortion, deception, and error that it's not worth answering. If anyone has any questions about any of his statements, feel free to message me or post them here. Anyway, moving on. .
Why do you call it an evasion when I defer to qualified professionals to interpret the medical evidence instead of inserting my own amateurish opinions into the discussion. Kin of like what you do.
For those who might be interested, another worthwhile discussion on some of the major problems with the autopsy evidence is presented in chapter 8 of Dr. Don Thomas's 2010 book Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, & the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination. Dr. Thomas is a retired USDA research scientist. He's had over 100 articles on biology, entomology, DNA, phylogeography, and ionizing radiation published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
He discusses the impossibility of an FMJ bullet "shearing off" a sizable fragment (or any fragment) at its entry point on a skull, the photographic and x-ray evidence of a frontal shot, the conflict between the head photos and the skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, and other important issues relating to the autopsy evidence.
As Donald Trump said to his Energy Secretary yesterday, "Nobody cares".
-
Yes, I've read John Corbett's latest reply. It is so loaded with evasion, distortion, deception, and error that it's not worth answering. If anyone has any questions about any of his statements, feel free to message me or post them here. Anyway, moving on. . . .
For those who might be interested, another worthwhile discussion on some of the major problems with the autopsy evidence is presented in chapter 8 of Dr. Don Thomas's 2010 book Hear No Evil: Politics, Science, & the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination. Dr. Thomas is a retired USDA research scientist. He's had over 100 articles on biology, entomology, DNA, phylogeography, and ionizing radiation published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
He discusses the impossibility of an FMJ bullet "shearing off" a sizable fragment (or any fragment) at its entry point on a skull, the photographic and x-ray evidence of a frontal shot, the conflict between the head photos and the skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, and other important issues relating to the autopsy evidence.
MTG: Dr. Thomas is a retired USDA research scientist.
He's an entomologist, an expert on insects. That doesn't make him an expert on gunshot wounds or on proper autopsy procedure.
MTG: He discusses the impossibility of an FMJ bullet "shearing off" a sizable fragment (or any fragment) at its entry point on a skull, the photographic and x-ray evidence of a frontal shot, the conflict between the head photos and the skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, and other important issues relating to the autopsy evidence.
This is nothing more than an attempt at Appeal to Authority, except the "authority" isn't actually an authority.
-
MTG: Dr. Thomas is a retired USDA research scientist.
He's an entomologist, an expert on insects. That doesn't make him an expert on gunshot wounds or on proper autopsy procedure.
MTG: He discusses the impossibility of an FMJ bullet "shearing off" a sizable fragment (or any fragment) at its entry point on a skull, the photographic and x-ray evidence of a frontal shot, the conflict between the head photos and the skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, and other important issues relating to the autopsy evidence.
This is nothing more than an attempt at Appeal to Authority, except the "authority" isn't actually an authority.
I've been trying to explain this to MTG for weeks. So far, it hasn't taken. Maybe you will have better luck than I have.
-
MTG: Dr. Thomas is a retired USDA research scientist. He discusses the impossibility of an FMJ bullet "shearing off" a sizable fragment (or any fragment) at its entry point on a skull, the photographic and x-ray evidence of a frontal shot, the conflict between the head photos and the skull x-rays regarding missing frontal bone, and other important issues relating to the autopsy evidence.
He's an entomologist, an expert on insects. That doesn't make him an expert on gunshot wounds or on proper autopsy procedure.
I've already answered this argument. But, you guys just repeat the same arguments over and over and ignore counterarguments.
The point is that Dr. Thomas is a scientist, someone trained in scientific methodology and analysis. He's applied those skills to the JFK case, and he's done so very expertly. For example, research done by BBN scientists from 2015 to 2018 proved that Dr. Thomas was right and that acoustical-evidence critic Dr. Ralph Linsker was wrong about the make-or-break issue of PCC testing of the Decker "Hold everything" transmission and the Fisher "I'll check it" transmission.
On the behavior of FMJ bullets, Dr. Thomas cites Dr. Vincent DiMaio. As I know you know, because I proved it to you, Dr. DiMaio said that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of pieces after penetrating bone, that if they leave any fragments they will be few in number, and that x-rays that show numerous tiny fragments rule out FMJ ammo. In fact, just to refresh your memory, let's read again what Dr. DiMaio said on this key issue:
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Did you catch that? (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments. (2) If an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
This is nothing more than an attempt at Appeal to Authority, except the "authority" isn't actually an authority.
Right, never mind that he cites experts in the relevant fields. You'd know that if you'd read his book.
Morever, as I've pointed out before, for decades WC defenders have been citing Dr. John Lattimer and Dr. Robert Artwohl on the forensic and wound ballistics evidence, even though Lattimer was a urologist and Artwohl was a general surgeon. You guys have cited a drummer named Steve Barber and former Dallas sheriff Jim Bowles to attack the HSCA's acoustical evidence. You guys have cited the Haags, who are downright quacks and cranks, to support the SBT.
Yet, trolls like John Corbett summarily dismiss medical evidence of multiple gunmen identified by neuroscientists, ballistics experts, physicists, radiation oncologists, neurologists, firearms experts, medical scientists, research scientists, radiologists, etc., because they're not forensic pathologists.
You're always admonishing me for disregarding eye witness accounts.
Umm, no, I've admonished you for being severely biased in your selection of which eyewitness accounts you accept and which ones you reject.
Anyone who studies the assassination will quickly see that the eyewitness accounts overwhelmingly support the conspiracy view and contradict the lone-gunman view.
Here's what the HSCA's own report said about Officer McLain:
"Subsequent to his hearing testimony, McLain stated that he believed he turned on his siren as soon as he heard Curry's order to proceed to Parkland Hospital . He said that everyone near him had their sirens on immediately.(91) Should his memory be reliable, the broadcast of the shots during the assassination would not have been over his radio, because the sound of sirens on the tape does not come until approximately 2 minutes later. The committee believed that McLain was in error on the point of his use of his siren."
This is further proof that you have no business discussing the acoustical evidence. I asked you how the dictabelt could have recorded gunfire N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes, in the correct order and interval, if it was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. I asked you how the dictabelt could contain numerous striking timing-movement correlations with the recording of the test-firing in Dealey Plaza, if it was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. I asked you how the dictabelt could have recorded windshield distortions only when the microphone was in position to record them and never when it was not in position to record them, if the dictabelt was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination.
And your answer to all this evidence is to cite McClain's belated story that he turned on his siren as soon as he heard Curry's order! To put it another way, you're citing a belated claim by a patrolman who changed his story when he was no longer under oath and are pretending that this somehow explains the hard scientific evidence on the dictabelt itself.
BTW, why do you suppose the NAS panel made no effort to explain the N-waves, the muzzle blasts, the muzzle-blast echoes, the interval and order of those sounds, and the windshield-distortion correlations? Humm? That's right: they didn't say a word about any of those remarkable evidences.
And I'm still waiting for you to explain the fact that the NAS panel admitted (1) that there was a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the dictabelt recorded sounds in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and (2) that there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern is gunfire from the grassy knoll.
Furthermore, I notice (1) that you snipped the paragraph that comes right before the one you partially quoted about McClain's claim regarding his siren, and (2) that you did not even quote the entire paragraph about McClain's belated claim, and (3) that you snipped the paragraph that follows the one you partially quoted. Humm, why did you do that? Or did you just copy and paste the statement from some lone-gunman site and not realize it was only a partial quote and was being taken out of context? Let's read what the paragraph before the one you quoted says:
Officer McLain's acknowledged actions subsequent to the assassination might explain the sound of sirens on the tape. McLain was in fact probably on Stemmons Freeway at the time Henslee noted that an unknown motorcycle appeared to have its microphone switch stuck open. McLain himself testified that following the assassination, he sped up to catch the front cars of the motorcade that had entered Stemmons Freeway en route to Parkland Hospital. In any event, it is certain he left the plaza shortly after the assassination. The cars in the motorcade had their sirens on, and this could account for the sound of the sirens increasing as McLain drew closer to them, whether he left Dealey Plaza immediately or shortly after the assassination. . . . (HSCA report, pp. 78-79)
Now let's read the rest of your quoted paragraph and the paragraph that follows it, starting with the last sentence you quoted:
The committee believed that McLain was in error on the point of his use of his siren. Since those riding in the motorcade near Chief Curry had their sirens on, there may have been no particular need for McLain to turn his on, too. The acoustical analysis pinpointing the location of the microphone, the confirmation of the location of the motorcycle by photographs, his own testimony as to his location, and his slowing his motorcycle as it rounded the corner of Houston and Elm (as had been previously indicated by the acoustical analysis),(92) and the likelihood that McLain did not leave the plaza immediately, but lagged behind momentarily after the assassination, led the committee to conclude it was Officer McLain whose radio microphone switch was stuck open.
Further, the committee noted, it would have been highly improbable for a motorcycle on Stemmons Freeway to have received the echo patterns for the four impulses that appear on the dispatch tape. As noted in more detail below, to contend that the microphone was elsewhere carries with it the burden of explaining all that appears on the tape. . . . Similarly, those who contend it was not in Dealey Plaza must explain the sounds that indicate it was. As Aschkenasy testified, the echo patterns on the tape would only have been received by a microphone located in a physical environment with the same acoustical characteristics as Dealey Plaza.(93) It is extremely unlikely that the echo patterns on the tape, if received from elsewhere, would so closely parallel the echo patterns characteristic of Dealey Plaza. (HSCA report, p. 78)
You keep repeating the misleading, dishonest argument that Dr. Barger said there was only a 50% probability that the dictabelt contained assassination gunfire impulses, ignoring the fact that he specified this was a preliminary finding and that he said this (1) before the Queens College acoustical experts reviewed BBN's initial findings, (2) before the Dealey Plaza test firing was conducted, and (3) before the BBN and Queens College acoustical scientists were able to compare the dictabelt impulses with the test-firing impulses.
I guess Dolce didn't give the WC a medical reason the SBT was impossible either.
You guessed wrong. As I noted in my reply, he pointed out that the SBT wound-ballistics test, which he supervised, proved the SBT was impossible. How did you miss this?
I guess I have this goofy idea that forensic medical examiners are the most qualified people to assess the evidence from a medico-legal autopsy.
Do you really think people can't see through this dodge? You keep ignoring my counterarguments to this evasion. You keep dodging the fact that even many forensic pathologists who don't posit multiple gunmen have produced findings that destroy your version of the shooting, e.g., the FPP's documentation of the fact that the autopsy brain photos, if authentic, categorically rule out the EOP site; the fact that the back-wound bullet entered and tunneled at an upward angle, a datum that the FPP lamely tried to "explain" by assuming JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck; and the fact that the only fragment trail on the extant skull x-rays is the high fragment trail, which bears no resemblance to the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report.
When I mentioned several forensic pathologists who've said the SBT is false and/or that FMJ ammo could not have caused the bullet fragmentation seen in the autopsy skull x-rays, you dodged these facts with the phony argument that I didn't quote their explanations for their findings. Well, no, I'm not going to copy and paste several pages of their research for you, when you can read it yourself. The fact that you refuse to read their research says much about your bias and lack of credibility.
When I pointed out that radiology and forensic experts consulted by the HSCA noted the skull x-rays show a large amount of missing frontal bone, you erroneously claimed that the missing frontal bone was only at the rear of the bone. You clearly still have not read John Hunt's detailed article "A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence," which I've cited to you several times.
Also, Dr. Doug Ubelaker, one of the ARRB's forensic experts, noted that the amount of missing frontal bone in the AP skull x-ray is inconsistent with the appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos, as I've mentioned to you before. When I raised this point and his observation that the autopsy photos indicate the bullet traveled from front to back, you lamely dismissed his findings because he was "only" a forensic anthropologist.
That won't work because when the FPP wanted help with reconstructing the skull wounds with the skull fragments, they asked a forensic anthropologist, Dr. Lawrence Angel, for assistance, and Dr. Angel's diagrams show the missing frontal bone extending more than halfway into the frontal bone from the rear edge of the bone and clearly near where the hairline was. This is another serious problem with the autopsy photos of the head.
You on the other hand think a radiation oncologist is well suited for that job.
Dr. Mantik was eminently qualified to perform OD measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays at the National Archives, and he found hard scientific evidence that they've been altered--he was even able to duplicate how the alteration was done. And, Dr. Chesser, a neurologist who examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives and who also examined JFK's pre-mortem skull x-rays at the Kennedy Library in Boston, did his own OD measurements and confirmed Dr. Mantik's finding.
As I've pointed out to you several times now, a forensic pathologist will usually not be an expert in ballistics, radiology, and physics, much less OD measurement and analysis. Yet, you keep repeating your flimsy dodge that we should ignore all forensic-related findings made by ballistics experts, physicists, neurologists, neuroscientists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, etc., because they're not forensic pathologists.
I see you're still repeating the falsehood that radiation oncologists are not trained in reading x-rays. Here's what Dr. Greg Henkelmann, himself a radiation oncologist, has said about Dr. Mantik's OD research on the skull x-rays:
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. (Front matter in Dr. Mantik's book JFK Assassination Paradoxes)
If you Google the question "How much training do radiation oncologists get in radiology?", here's the answer you will get (note: nuclear medicine is a specialized area of radiology):
Radiation oncologists typically complete a 1-month formal rotation in diagnostic imaging or nuclear medicine during their 4-year radiation oncology residency. While this is the minimum formal requirement, they receive heavy, daily exposure to oncologic imaging throughout their training to master CT, MRI, and PET scans for precise tumor targeting.
Because radiation oncologists must accurately identify tumors, organs, and surrounding healthy tissues to plan radiation fields, their training integrates radiology concepts in several ways.
In short, most radiation oncologists are not full-fledged radiologists, but they receive considerable training in radiology. If a radiation oncologist becomes interested in a gunshot case, especially if he does some reading in forensic science (as Dr. Mantik has done), he can apply his expertise to reading the x-rays of the gunshot victim, and, crucially, he can do OD measurements of the alleged/identified bullet fragments in the x-rays to determine if they're actually metallic fragments and to determine their density/thickness, which is something that few forensic pathologists can do.
And, again, while he was working as a radiation oncologist, i.e., before he retired, Dr. Mantik was licensed in radiology.
-
The point is that Dr. Thomas is a scientist, someone trained in scientific methodology and analysis. He's applied those skills to the JFK case, and he's done so very expertly. For example, research done by BBN scientists from 2015 to 2018 proved that Dr. Thomas was right and that acoustical-evidence critic Dr. Ralph Linsker was wrong about the make-or-break issue of PCC testing of the Decker "Hold everything" transmission and the Fisher "I'll check it" transmission.
The late Dr. Thomas was way more serious-looking than me, I'll give him that: https://unsm-ento.unl.edu/workers/DThomas.htm. On top of which, his investigative responsibilities involved "host associations of cattle fever ticks in the permanent quarantine zone along the Texas-Mexico border." I will admit, what I know about cattle fever ticks could be comfortably written on a cattle fever tick if you could get the silly beast to sit still. He "also developed expertise in the taxonomy of stink bugs (Pentatomidae), the bionomics of livestock insects, and the ecology of desert tenebrionids." If this were not enough, "An avocational interest in the Scarabaeidae resulted in avid collecting and becoming an aficionado of scarab beetle diversity." We do have that in common - I'm kind of a scarab beetle sort myself.
"The point is that [Dr. Payette] is a [lawyer], someone trained in [the evaluation of evidence] and analy[tical thinking]." See how that works? Everyone is an expert. (Because a JD degree is a "Juris Doctor," some lawyers actually do refer to themselves as Dr., which other lawyers find highly comical. Some, like Kevin Hofeling, who is no longer even a lawyer, insist on using "Esq." as though they were 18th Century barristers.)
-
I've already answered this argument. But, you guys just repeat the same arguments over and over and ignore counterarguments.
That's quite ironic coming from you. You've been repeating the same myths for at least 35 years. Maybe longer. Just what have you accomplished in that time?
The point is that Dr. Thomas is a scientist, someone trained in scientific methodology and analysis.
You really don't seem to care where a person's area of expertise lies. As long as he has expertise in some field and he tells a story that fits your narrative, that's good enough for you.
He's applied those skills to the JFK case, and he's done so very expertly. For example, research done by BBN scientists from 2015 to 2018 proved that Dr. Thomas was right and that acoustical-evidence critic Dr. Ralph Linsker was wrong about the make-or-break issue of PCC testing of the Decker "Hold everything" transmission and the Fisher "I'll check it" transmission.
To you, proof means they reached a conclusion that you agree with.
On the behavior of FMJ bullets, Dr. Thomas cites Dr. Vincent DiMaio. As I know you know, because I proved it to you, Dr. DiMaio said that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of pieces after penetrating bone, that if they leave any fragments they will be few in number, and that x-rays that show numerous tiny fragments rule out FMJ ammo. In fact, just to refresh your memory, let's read again what Dr. DiMaio said on this key issue:
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
Explain why a shattered FMJ bullet ended up in the limo and was found that night by the Secret Service.
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318)
Did you catch that? (1) In the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments. (2) If an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
It is very rare for military FMJ bullets to be used in a homicide, and specifically involved in gunshot wounds to the head. The overwhelming number of gunshot homicides are committed with handguns at close range. More people are killed with bare hands and feet each year than with rifles. Only several hundred homicides are committed each year with all rifles and those using FMJ ammo are a subset of that. Those involving gunshots to the head with military FMJ ammo would be an even smaller subset. Given those figures, one has to question how many homicides Di Maio has examined in which the victim was killed by a FMJ bullet to the head fired from a rifle. It would not surprise me if the answer is zero.
Right, never mind that he cites experts in the relevant fields. You'd know that if you'd read his book.
Morever, as I've pointed out before, for decades WC defenders have been citing Dr. John Lattimer and Dr. Robert Artwohl on the forensic and wound ballistics evidence, even though Lattimer was a urologist and Artwohl was a general surgeon. You guys have cited a drummer named Steve Barber and former Dallas sheriff Jim Bowles to attack the HSCA's acoustical evidence. You guys have cited the Haags, who are downright quacks and cranks, to support the SBT.
Yet, trolls like John Corbett summarily dismiss medical evidence of multiple gunmen identified by neuroscientists, ballistics experts, physicists, radiation oncologists, neurologists, firearms experts, medical scientists, research scientists, radiologists, etc., because they're not forensic pathologists.
Gee, imagine putting one's faith in people who are actually trained in the field they are offering opinions about. What was I thinking?
Umm, no, I've admonished you for being severely biased in your selection of which eyewitness accounts you accept and which ones you reject.
I choose to believe witnesses who can be corroborated by other forms of evidence and dismiss those who are refuted by other forms of evidence. For those who can neither be corroborated or refuted, I keep an open mind. I neither accept nor reject their accounts.
Anyone who studies the assassination will quickly see that the eyewitness accounts overwhelmingly support the conspiracy view and contradict the lone-gunman view.
That would be a compelling argument if you could corroborate the witnesses who support a conspiracy. I've never seen that done.
This is further proof that you have no business discussing the acoustical evidence. I asked you how the dictabelt could have recorded gunfire N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes, in the correct order and interval, if it was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. I asked you how the dictabelt could contain numerous striking timing-movement correlations with the recording of the test-firing in Dealey Plaza, if it was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. I asked you how the dictabelt could have recorded windshield distortions only when the microphone was in position to record them and never when it was not in position to record them, if the dictabelt was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination.
And your answer to all this evidence is to cite McClain's belated story that he turned on his siren as soon as he heard Curry's order! To put it another way, you're citing a belated claim by a patrolman who changed his story when he was no longer under oath and are pretending that this somehow explains the hard scientific evidence on the dictabelt itself.
BTW, why do you suppose the NAS panel made no effort to explain the N-waves, the muzzle blasts, the muzzle-blast echoes, the interval and order of those sounds, and the windshield-distortion correlations? Humm? That's right: they didn't say a word about any of those remarkable evidences.
And I'm still waiting for you to explain the fact that the NAS panel admitted (1) that there was a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the dictabelt recorded sounds in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and (2) that there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern is gunfire from the grassy knoll.
Furthermore, I notice (1) that you snipped the paragraph that comes right before the one you partially quoted about McClain's claim regarding his siren, and (2) that you did not even quote the entire paragraph about McClain's belated claim, and (3) that you snipped the paragraph that follows the one you partially quoted. Humm, why did you do that? Or did you just copy and paste the statement from some lone-gunman site and not realize it was only a partial quote and was being taken out of context? Let's read what the paragraph before the one you quoted says:
Officer McLain's acknowledged actions subsequent to the assassination might explain the sound of sirens on the tape. McLain was in fact probably on Stemmons Freeway at the time Henslee noted that an unknown motorcycle appeared to have its microphone switch stuck open. McLain himself testified that following the assassination, he sped up to catch the front cars of the motorcade that had entered Stemmons Freeway en route to Parkland Hospital. In any event, it is certain he left the plaza shortly after the assassination. The cars in the motorcade had their sirens on, and this could account for the sound of the sirens increasing as McLain drew closer to them, whether he left Dealey Plaza immediately or shortly after the assassination. . . . (HSCA report, pp. 78-79)
Now let's read the rest of your quoted paragraph and the paragraph that follows it, starting with the last sentence you quoted:
The committee believed that McLain was in error on the point of his use of his siren. Since those riding in the motorcade near Chief Curry had their sirens on, there may have been no particular need for McLain to turn his on, too. The acoustical analysis pinpointing the location of the microphone, the confirmation of the location of the motorcycle by photographs, his own testimony as to his location, and his slowing his motorcycle as it rounded the corner of Houston and Elm (as had been previously indicated by the acoustical analysis),(92) and the likelihood that McLain did not leave the plaza immediately, but lagged behind momentarily after the assassination, led the committee to conclude it was Officer McLain whose radio microphone switch was stuck open.
Further, the committee noted, it would have been highly improbable for a motorcycle on Stemmons Freeway to have received the echo patterns for the four impulses that appear on the dispatch tape. As noted in more detail below, to contend that the microphone was elsewhere carries with it the burden of explaining all that appears on the tape. . . . Similarly, those who contend it was not in Dealey Plaza must explain the sounds that indicate it was. As Aschkenasy testified, the echo patterns on the tape would only have been received by a microphone located in a physical environment with the same acoustical characteristics as Dealey Plaza.(93) It is extremely unlikely that the echo patterns on the tape, if received from elsewhere, would so closely parallel the echo patterns characteristic of Dealey Plaza. (HSCA report, p. 78)
You keep repeating the misleading, dishonest argument that Dr. Barger said there was only a 50% probability that the dictabelt contained assassination gunfire impulses, ignoring the fact that he specified this was a preliminary finding and that he said this (1) before the Queens College acoustical experts reviewed BBN's initial findings, (2) before the Dealey Plaza test firing was conducted, and (3) before the BBN and Queens College acoustical scientists were able to compare the dictabelt impulses with the test-firing impulses.
You seem to favor quantity over quality in your posts. Rather than spend another hour of my time with a point-by-point refutation of your typical long winded post, I will simply point out the booger you have to deal with. There is photographic evidence that Officer McLain's motorcycle was not in the position the acoustics team determined he needed to be for their findings to be valid. There is not a scrap of forensic, medical, or photographic evidence that supports a shot from the GK, nor did any eyewitness on either side of the fence see a shooter even though there were people on both sides of the fence in position to see such a shooter and more who raced to the area following the shots who saw a gunman. Makes it kind of hard to believe the acoustical evidence that a gunman fired from the GK.
You guessed wrong. As I noted in my reply, he pointed out that the SBT wound-ballistics test, which he supervised, proved the SBT was impossible. How did you miss this?
You keep claiming these people have proven the SBT is impossible without ever telling us why they said it is impossible. That makes it kind of hard to evaluate their conclusions.
Do you really think people can't see through this dodge? You keep ignoring my counterarguments to this evasion. You keep dodging the fact that even many forensic pathologists who don't posit multiple gunmen have produced findings that destroy your version of the shooting, e.g., the FPP's documentation of the fact that the autopsy brain photos, if authentic, categorically rule out the EOP site; the fact that the back-wound bullet entered and tunneled at an upward angle, a datum that the FPP lamely tried to "explain" by assuming JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck; and the fact that the only fragment trail on the extant skull x-rays is the high fragment trail, which bears no resemblance to the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report.
If we are going to talk about dodges, let's talk about some of yours.
You have never tried to explain JBC's arm flip at Z226 which coincided with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms.
You have cited numerous "experts" who say the SBT was impossible without ever saying why it was impossible.
You have continued to insist that Oswald wasn't capable of making he shots that struck JFK without ever pointing to anything in his USMC record that would indicate he lacked the skills.
You have claimed a bolt action rifle can' be fired as accurately as a semi-auto rifle, even though I've pointed out that Carlos Hathcock used bolt action rifles for his long range kill shots.
This will do for starters. If you can answer these I'll move on to some more.
When I mentioned several forensic pathologists who've said the SBT is false and/or that FMJ ammo could not have caused the bullet fragmentation seen in the autopsy skull x-rays, you dodged these facts with the phony argument that I didn't quote their explanations for their findings. Well, no, I'm not going to copy and paste several pages of their research for you, when you can read it yourself. The fact that you refuse to read their research says much about your bias and lack of credibility.
Once again you cite people who claim the SBT is impossible without ever saying why it is impossible. To the best of my knowledge, none of these people had access to the medical evidence. All three members of the autopsy team and all but one member of the FPP who did see the medical evidence concur with the SBT. Wecht dissented from that based not on any medical evidence but on his interpretation of what the Z-film shows and the false premise that JBC was sitting directly in front of JFK and at the same level.
When I pointed out that radiology and forensic experts consulted by the HSCA noted the skull x-rays show a large amount of missing frontal bone, you erroneously claimed that the missing frontal bone was only at the rear of the bone. You clearly still have not read John Hunt's detailed article "A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence," which I've cited to you several times.
I am under no obligation to hunt down the support for your arguments. If you have evidence of missing frontal bone other than the posterior of the bone, then post it here. I'm no going to responde to your unsupported claims because you have a habit of overstating or outright misrepresenting what the people you cite have said.
Also, Dr. Doug Ubelaker, one of the ARRB's forensic experts, noted that the amount of missing frontal bone in the AP skull x-ray is inconsistent with the appearance of the forehead in the autopsy photos, as I've mentioned to you before. When I raised this point and his observation that the autopsy photos indicate the bullet traveled from front to back, you lamely dismissed his findings because he was "only" a forensic anthropologist.
Based on what you are claiming, I'd gladly bet this clown is not a radiologist and is referring to the frontal x-ray and claiming there is bone missing from around the eye socket. I've seen people misinterpret that x-ray in the past. When I was a CT, I was duped by that x-ray as well.
That won't work because when the FPP wanted help with reconstructing the skull wounds with the skull fragments, they asked a forensic anthropologist, Dr. Lawrence Angel, for assistance, and Dr. Angel's diagrams show the missing frontal bone extending more than halfway into the frontal bone from the rear edge of the bone and clearly near where the hairline was. This is another serious problem with the autopsy photos of the head.
I'd love to see that diagram. That is completely inconsistent with the leaked autopsy photos that shoe the area of his forehead and hairline to be intact. We do see a skull flap on the upper right side of his head. I lack the expertise to say whether that flap is or is not from the frontal bone.
Dr. Mantik was eminently qualified to perform OD measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays at the National Archives, and he found hard scientific evidence that they've been altered--he was even able to duplicate how the alteration was done. And, Dr. Chesser, a neurologist who examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives and who also examined JFK's pre-mortem skull x-rays at the Kennedy Library in Boston, did his own OD measurements and confirmed Dr. Mantik's finding.
Claiming and proving are not the same thing. Funny how no one on the FPP claimed the x-rays were tampered with.
As I've pointed out to you several times now, a forensic pathologist will usually not be an expert in ballistics, radiology, and physics, much less OD measurement and analysis. Yet, you keep repeating your flimsy dodge that we should ignore all forensic-related findings made by ballistics experts, physicists, neurologists, neuroscientists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, etc., because they're not forensic pathologists.
Forensic pathologists are specifically trained to examine bodies of victims of homicides to the precise cause of their wounds. Which of these other disciplines are so trained?
I see you're still repeating the falsehood that radiation oncologists are not trained in reading x-rays. Here's what Dr. Greg Henkelmann, himself a radiation oncologist, has said about Dr. Mantik's OD research on the skull x-rays:
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. (Front matter in Dr. Mantik's book JFK Assassination Paradoxes) [/quote]
Have either Henkelmann or Mantik ever examined the victim of a gunshot wound to the head. I think we both no the answer to that. .
If you Google the question "How much training do radiation oncologists get in radiology?", here's the answer you will get (note: nuclear medicine is a specialized area of radiology):
Radiation oncologists typically complete a 1-month formal rotation in diagnostic imaging or nuclear medicine during their 4-year radiation oncology residency. While this is the minimum formal requirement, they receive heavy, daily exposure to oncologic imaging throughout their training to master CT, MRI, and PET scans for precise tumor targeting.
There you have it. They are trained in dealing with tumors, not gunshot wounds.
Because radiation oncologists must accurately identify tumors, organs, and surrounding healthy tissues to plan radiation fields, their training integrates radiology concepts in several ways.[/font]
But no training or experience int dealing with gunshot wounds.
In short, most radiation oncologists are not full-fledged radiologists, but they receive considerable training in radiology. If a radiation oncologist becomes interested in a gunshot case, especially if he does some reading in forensic science (as Dr. Mantik has done), he can apply his expertise to reading the x-rays of the gunshot victim, and, crucially, he can do OD measurements of the alleged/identified bullet fragments in the x-rays to determine if they're actually metallic fragments and to determine their density/thickness, which is something that few forensic pathologists can do.
And, again, while he was working as a radiation oncologist, i.e., before he retired, Dr. Mantik was licensed in radiology.
Let me see you prove that.
-
Another serious conflict in the medical evidence involves the placement of the triangular skull fragment and the Harper skull fragment.
The FPP claimed that the triangular fragment and the Harper fragment marked the exit point of a bullet, and said that the two fragments adjoined one another and completed a single bullet exit hole at the coronal suture on the right front side of the skull. This is pure fiction, and the FPP's expert skull reconstruction consultant, Dr. Lawrence Angel, refuted it in his report.
This is very important for two reasons: One, the FPP falsely placed the skull fragments because they were trying to validate the cowlick entry site and to come up with a plausible exit point for the bullet. Two, the FPP falsely placed the skull fragments in order to make the head wound seem smaller and thus to seem consistent with having been caused by an FMJ bullet that struck the skull in the rear after having been fired from the sixth-floor window.
I should start by noting Dr. Angel was well qualified to do the skull reconstruction. Noted respected researcher John Hunt:
Dr. Angel, a well-respected and experienced forensic anthropologist, assisted the FBI on many occasions, and “reported on over 565 cases and testified as an expert witness in 18 murder trials.” Angel, Curator of Physical Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution offered the HSCA the benefit of his considerable expertise. After examining the photographs and X-rays on three separate occasions, Angel submitted a detailed report in which he set out his anatomic relocation of the Harper and Triangular fragments. It comes as no surprise that anthropologist Angel justified his opinions by citing specific anatomic features. (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm)
Dr. Angel placed the Harper fragment in the rear area of the parietal bone, with most of it positioned behind the right ear. For obvious reasons, this was totally unacceptable to the FPP. Ignoring Dr. Angel's detailed analysis and diagrams, the FPP decided that the Harper fragment was at the right front of the skull and that it adjoined the triangular fragment. Observed John Hunt,
Ultimately, the FPP simply told us that the Harper fragment belonged at the right front of the skull without offering a single piece of evidence/analysis in support of that contention. The FPP lamely wrote that they “attempted to locate the correct position of these fragments,” but never elaborated on the process. Significantly, the FPP did not (and probably could not) refute or rebut the detailed analysis of the forensic anthropology expert they consulted. Nor did they bother to explain, justify, or even acknowledge their quiet, intellectually troublesome rejection of Dr. Angel’s opinions. . . .
Astoundingly, the FPP went on to leave the entirely false impression that Angel, in fact, agreed with their interpretation of the orientation of the bone fragments. Wrote the FPP:
"Anthropologist Dr. Angel's evaluation of the “Harper bone fragment” indicates that it may include a portion of the sagittal suture which is probably in apposition (corresponds) to this [skull bone] exit defect [emphasis added]." (7HSCA119)
Incredibly, the FPP claimed that Angel put the Harper fragment at the front of the head, associating it with the skull bevel. The FPP could not be more wrong. The unequivocal text of Angel’s report and the drawing attached to it leave no room for doubt: Angel placed the Harper fragment at the top rear of the head. The FPP even quote that passage from Angel’s report on page 123 of their Report!
The FPP outright misrepresented what Angel reported, then reproduced his report as an addendum to their own Report! The FPP did not bother to inform the reader that Dr. Angel completely disagreed with their interpretation of the exit wound location and the orientation of the skull fragments relative to the exit portal. (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm)
The FPP also ignored Dr. Angel's analysis regarding the location of the large triangular fragment. Dr. Angel located it in the frontal bone, with its front portion extending nearly to the hairline, but the FPP put the fragment in the parietal bone, on the opposite side of the coronal suture from where Dr. Angel put it!
This is a crucial issue because the autopsy photos that show JFK's face impossibly show the forehead and the front hairline intact.
Dr. Donald Thomas has also commented on the FPP's deception in their skull reconstruction and in their rejection of Dr. Angel's report and diagrams in order to shrink the size of the large head wound and to come up with a plausible exit point for the bullet. In his 2010 book Hear No Evil, we read the following:
The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel made an attempt at a reconstruction, even though they were working under the constraint of having only unlabeled photographs and X-rays to work with. Paramount to a valid reconstruction is the accurate anatomical identification of the disembodied skull fragments. Towards this end the HSCA engaged the services of an expert in physical anthropology, Dr. J. Lawrence Angel, of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. Angel identified the bone fragments and oriented the head wound photographs for the panel. But, for reasons known only to the members of the Forensic Pathology Panel, Dr. Angel's expert opinions were ignored. Dr. Angel's brief but succinct report is worth repeating here for two reasons. Firstly, Professor Angel was in his era one of the most respected practitioners in the field of forensic anthropology. Secondly, his analysis of Kennedy's skull wound is, in my opinion, not only authoritative, but the most accurate reconstruction heretofore available. . . . [quotes Dr. Angel's report]
For those whose eyes glazed over at or near the word "obelion," Dr. Angel illustrated his reconstruction with a hand drawing of the skull defect and the recovered fragments (Fig. 8.1). To best comprehend the difference between the true nature of Kennedy's head wound and the official versions, one can compare Angel's report with the Baden/Dox drawing published by the HSCA, purporting to illustrate the dimensions and details of the cranial defect (Fig. 8.2). Now that the autopsy photographs and X-rays have been published it can be seen that the latter drawing is deceptive, perhaps deliberately so, on the part of the Forensic Pathology Panel [FPP] and specifically that of its chairman, Dr. Michael Baden, who oversaw preparation of the illustration. (pp. 250-251)
The FPP needed to shrink the size of the head wound in order to make it appear consistent with having been created by an FMJ bullet that was fired from the sixth-floor window and that therefore struck straight on. Dr. Thomas:
The first step in cataloging the mistakes in the Baden/Dox illustration is to note the dimensions of the massive defect on the right side of the head, the exit wound according to the official version. An accompanying scale used for the trajectory analysis by the Photographic Evidence Panel gives the distance from the entrance hole in the occiput to the exit hole at the right coronal suture as 11 cm. The official autopsy report stated 13 cm as the length of this defect. However, Dr. Jay Boswell, the autopsy pathologist who made notes and drawings during the autopsy, recorded 17 cm as the greatest dimension of the wound (Fig. 8.3). Which dimension is correct: the HSCA's 11 cm, or Boswell's measurement of 17 cm? Boswell's notes have proven reliable in other instances. Inasmuch as the recovered bony fragments could not have come from a wound only 11 cm in greatest length (one recovered fragment alone was 8 cm long and 6 cm wide) the true dimensions of the wound are sharply diminished in the Baden/Dox illustration. The incredible shrinking wound effect was perhaps not without purpose. (pp. 252-253)
Dr. Thomas then notes that one of the HSCA's radiology consultants, Dr. Norman Chase, the chairman of the Department of Radiology at the New York University School of Medicine, informed the HSCA that the large head wound was "not" what he would expect "from a single, jacketed bullet hitting straight on," and then he suggested the bullet may have been tumbling or may have hit at an angle--which of course was not at all consistent with a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window at Z311-312. Dr. Thomas:
Remarks by an expert on wound ballistics, Dr. Norman Chase, when consulted by the HSCA staff for his opinion of the wound depicted in the autopsy photographs, was to the effect that,
"... the wound was massive, not the kind he would expect from a single, jacketed bullet hitting straight on; it was possibly tumbling or hit at an angle."
Evidently, this was not the sort of impression that the Forensic Pathology Panel wished to leave. (p. 253)
Dr. Thomas further notes that the FPP's deception became obvious when the autopsy materials were released, and that this deception included the FPP's bogus claim that no frontal bone was missing and that no bullet hit the skull from the front:
The deception only became evident when the autopsy photographs were made available. Examination of the autopsy photographs reveals that the broken anterior portion of the cranium included part of the lower frontal region, extending nearly to the President's hairline and not just the temporal bone as depicted in the illustration. . . .
According to the Forensic Pathology panel the right temple was the point of exit of the fatal bullet. On the contrary, for reasons detailed later, it is more likely that the "bat wing", the "devil's ear," and the notch in the right temple, are fractures and fracture fragments resulting from the impact of a missile entering the frontal bone just anterior to the coronal suture. A radiating pattern of fractures is characteristic of an entrance wound of the skull caused by a high-powered rifle bullet. One would have difficulty guessing that
there were displaced bones and massive complete fractures running in various directions from a point on the right temple if one depended on the Baden/Dox drawing. (pp. 253, 255)
Finally, I should add as an important side note that we now know that Dr. Gerald McDonnel, arguably the HSCA's most highly qualified radiology consultant, disagreed with FPP member/FPP report author Dr. James Weston about what the fracturing in the x-rays indicated about the direction of the bullet (see Hunt's discussion on this disclosure, https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm).
-
As Donald Trump recently said to his Energy Secretary Chris Wright, "Nobody cares".
-
As Donald Trump recently said to his Energy Secretary Chris Wright, "Nobody cares".
Humm, a few weeks ago, your line was that you defer to the HSCA FPP and their "UNANIMOUS" findings. Then, confronted with some of the FPP's findings that wreak havoc on your version of the shooting, your next line was "I don't have to explain the medical evidence." Nah, of course not, because that would require you to at least know the basics about the medical evidence, which you clearly do not. And so now, your new line is "Nobody cares," i.e., that you don't care, which is perhaps your most honest line yet.
-
Humm, a few weeks ago, your line was that you defer to the HSCA FPP and their "UNANIMOUS" findings. Then, confronted with some of the FPP's findings that wreak havoc on your version of the shooting, your next line was "I don't have to explain the medical evidence." Nah, of course not, because that would require you to at least know the basics about the medical evidence, which you clearly do not. And so now, your new line is "Nobody cares," i.e., that you don't care, which is perhaps your most honest line yet.
I was speaking specifically about their finding that JFK was shot twice from behind. But you have a long history of taking people's statements out of context and not quoting them accurately. When someone quotes a single word or phrase out of context, as you have here, it's a safe bet they are trying to misrepresent what a person actually said......as you have here.
-
All commenters are working off evidence presented by researchers that present facts, a photo here a statement from evidence there. We all learn as we go along. I discovered where the head shooter was from the Z-film. Evidence from K's X-rays proves he was shot from a ground location. Like the storm drain at the corner of Elm and Houston that was later removed by Dallas as part of a coverup. K's back wound was at an upward angle as the pass-through slug went on to make the dent by the mirror. Where else could this shot have come from? Not Oswald.
-
All commenters are working off evidence presented by researchers that present facts, a photo here a statement from evidence there. We all learn as we go along. I discovered where the head shooter was from the Z-film. Evidence from K's X-rays proves he was shot from a ground location. Like the storm drain at the corner of Elm and Houston that was later removed by Dallas as part of a coverup. K's back wound was at an upward angle as the pass-through slug went on to make the dent by the mirror. Where else could this shot have come from? Not Oswald.
Let me see. We can accept the findings of a team of the most respected forensic medical examiners in that country who had access to all the original autopsy photos and x-rays or we can go with the opinion of a rank amateur who has only seen a small subset of low-resolution copies of the photos and x-rays. Gee, that's a tough call.
This photo from the Secret Service re-enactment shows the downward angle of the single bullet entering JFK's back below the collar of his jacket, at the level of the knot of this tie and into the back of JBC next to his armpit. It is a myth that the back shot or the head shot went through JFK on an upward angle.
https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/29149/photograph-of-fbi-agents-reenacting-the-kennedy-assassinatio
-
Below are some additional problems with the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. I didn't list them in the OP because I didn't want the OP to turn into a book. I feared the OP was already getting a bit long.
-- The lateral skull x-rays show a physically impossible white patch in the lower half of the right-rear part of the skull. The patch's optical-density (OD) measurements are almost the same as those of the petrous bone, which is a physical impossibility. According to the OD measurements of the white patch, the skull bone in this location extends nearly to the other side of the skull, which is a physical impossibility.
-- Dr. Michael Chesser examined and took OD measurements of a pre-mortem JFK skull x-ray at the Kennedy Library in Boston in order to provide a control for the OD readings of the white patch. He saw nothing resembling the white patch on the pre-mortem skull x-ray, and his OD measurements of the pre-mortem x-ray showed far less density than the OD measurements of the white patch on the lateral autopsy skull x-rays.
-- Another fact that proves the autopsy skull x-rays have been altered is the fact that the white patch on the lateral skull x-rays is nowhere to be seen on the AP skull x-ray. If the white patch had been on the original lateral x-rays, it would be on the AP x-ray as well--indeed, it would very obvious and easy to see on the AP x-ray. But, there is no trace of it on the extant AP x-ray. This is a physical impossibility, as Dr. David Mantik has explained:
It should also be emphasized that, although this white patch is obvious on both lateral skull X-rays, it is nowhere to be seen on the AP (frontal) skull X-ray. In the physical universe that we know, this is impossible. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 9)
-- Additional clear physical proof that the autopsy skull x-rays are not the originals is the fact that on the lateral x-ray of the neck area there is a T-shaped symbol etched onto the x-ray, but there is no emulsion missing from the x-ray at this spot on either side of the film, proving this x-ray is a copy and not an original.
Custer, the autopsy x-ray technician, said he made various marks on the x-rays for identification purposes. When you etch a symbol or letter into x-ray film, naturally there will be emulsion missing from the film at that location on that side of the film. However, there is no emulsion missing from either side of the film of this lateral x-ray, which is hard physical proof that the x-ray is a copy and not an original.
Dr. Mantik made this historic discovery during his final viewing of the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Michael Chesser confirmed the fact that no emulsion is missing from either side of the x-ray film when he examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Mantik:
The T-shaped inscription must have been etched into the emulsion on the original (never-released) lateral X-ray film. Such etching is easy to do, e.g., by using a fingernail, metal file, or nail. The missing emulsion would have been easy to detect, especially while viewing the surface at an angle to a light source. Inspection of the other side would clearly have shown no missing emulsion (because the etching was only done on one side of the double emulsion film). Realizing this, during my final visit to the Archives (April 12, 2001), I scrutinized these emulsions very carefully.
I first asked Steve Tilley, the JFK archivist, to remove the X-ray film from its transparent plastic sheath so that I could view the surfaces directly. He did so. And then, after viewing at multiple angles, I recognized that no emulsion was missing from either side of the film! The implication was inescapable: this could only be a copy film—not an original. That is because the copy film would preserve the image of the T-shaped inscription, but it would also retain its own emulsion (on both sides) -- since no one had scraped emulsion off either side of this copy film. . . .
Once I recognized that this lateral X-ray film was a forgery, I had a shocking insight. None of the three extant JFK skull X-ray films is an original—all three must be copies. In this case, it means that all three are altered images. Most likely, all of the original skull X-ray films (of five to six total) had to be destroyed because they contained forensic proof that Oswald was not the sole assassin.
In Chesser’s review (at the 2015 JFK Lancer Conference), he confirmed my observations of the T-shaped inscription:
"Dr. Mantik described emulsion over the T-shaped wax mark, which was attributed to Ed Reed marking the film. I agree with him that the surface of the film appeared smooth, when viewed at eye level."
Like me, Dr. Chesser saw that emulsion was fully present on both sides of this lateral X-ray film, thus leaving no doubt that the film is a duplicate. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, 2024, pp. 201-203)
-- In September 1977, shortly before the HSCA publicly displayed the JFK autopsy x-rays for the first time, Dr. Russell Morgan, the radiologist on the Clark Panel, said he was no longer so certain that the bullet that hit JFK’s head was an FMJ bullet, and suggested that the high fragment trail might be more consistent with a frangible bullet than with an FMJ bullet because the fragmentation of the bullet was so severe. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 206)
Remember that it was Dr. Morgan who told Howard Donahue that the Clark Panel believed the 6.5 mm object in the rear outer table of the skull was a ricochet fragment.
-- Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik, among others, have noted that the high fragment trail expands from front to back, not back to front, which indicates the bullet struck the front of the head, since fragment trails naturally tend to expand in skulls after penetration.
Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik have also noted that the larger fragments of the high fragment trail are at the end of the trail's expansion, and that the science of ballistics tells us that in a group of bullet fragments the larger fragments will travel farther from the entry point. Dr. Chesser explains this in conjunction with his identification of a right-front entry wound on the skull x-rays:
The most important finding here is the proximity of these tiny metallic fragments to this bone defect. This location, on the intracranial side of the bony defect, is highly suggestive of an entry wound. One of the principles of skull ballistics is that the largest fragments travel the furthest from the entry site, with the smallest fragments traveling the least distance, and that is exactly what is seen on this right lateral skull x-ray. (“The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of Brain Photographs,” November 27, 2017, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-application-of-forensic-principles-for-the-analysis-of-the-autopsy-skull-x-rays-of-president-kennedy-and-a-review-of-the-brain-photographs)
Dr. Mantik adds,
When you look at the x-rays that are stored at the archives now, on the lateral x-ray there is a fragment trail. It actually expands from front to back. . . .
Now why is that important? Well, what we know is that the larger bullet fragments travel farther, whereas the smaller ones tend to stay near the entry site. That’s what we see on these X-rays. In other words, we can reasonably interpret these as being consistent with a frontal bullet, but being radically inconsistent with a posterior bullet. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 193)
-
Below are some additional problems with the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. I didn't list them in the OP because I didn't want the OP to turn into a book. I feared the OP was already getting a bit long.
-- The lateral skull x-rays show a physically impossible white patch in the lower half of the right-rear part of the skull. The patch's optical-density (OD) measurements are almost the same as those of the petrous bone, which is a physical impossibility. According to the OD measurements of the white patch, the skull bone in this location extends nearly to the other side of the skull, which is a physical impossibility.
-- Dr. Michael Chesser examined and took OD measurements of a pre-mortem JFK skull x-ray at the Kennedy Library in Boston in order to provide a control for the OD readings of the white patch. He saw nothing resembling the white patch on the pre-mortem skull x-ray, and his OD measurements of the pre-mortem x-ray showed far less density than the OD measurements of the white patch on the lateral autopsy skull x-rays.
-- Another fact that proves the autopsy skull x-rays have been altered is the fact that the white patch on the lateral skull x-rays is nowhere to be seen on the AP skull x-ray. If the white patch had been on the original lateral x-rays, it would be on the AP x-ray as well--indeed, it would very obvious and easy to see on the AP x-ray. But, there is no trace of it on the extant AP x-ray. This is a physical impossibility, as Dr. David Mantik has explained:
It should also be emphasized that, although this white patch is obvious on both lateral skull X-rays, it is nowhere to be seen on the AP (frontal) skull X-ray. In the physical universe that we know, this is impossible. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 9)
-- Additional clear physical proof that the autopsy skull x-rays are not the originals is the fact that on the lateral x-ray of the neck area there is a T-shaped symbol etched onto the x-ray, but there is no emulsion missing from the x-ray at this spot on either side of the film, proving this x-ray is a copy and not an original.
Custer, the autopsy x-ray technician, said he made various marks on the x-rays for identification purposes. When you etch a symbol or letter into x-ray film, naturally there will be emulsion missing from the film at that location on that side of the film. However, there is no emulsion missing from either side of the film of this lateral x-ray, which is hard physical proof that the x-ray is a copy and not an original.
Dr. Mantik made this historic discovery during his final viewing of the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Michael Chesser confirmed the fact that no emulsion is missing from either side of the x-ray film when he examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Mantik:
The T-shaped inscription must have been etched into the emulsion on the original (never-released) lateral X-ray film. Such etching is easy to do, e.g., by using a fingernail, metal file, or nail. The missing emulsion would have been easy to detect, especially while viewing the surface at an angle to a light source. Inspection of the other side would clearly have shown no missing emulsion (because the etching was only done on one side of the double emulsion film). Realizing this, during my final visit to the Archives (April 12, 2001), I scrutinized these emulsions very carefully.
I first asked Steve Tilley, the JFK archivist, to remove the X-ray film from its transparent plastic sheath so that I could view the surfaces directly. He did so. And then, after viewing at multiple angles, I recognized that no emulsion was missing from either side of the film! The implication was inescapable: this could only be a copy film—not an original. That is because the copy film would preserve the image of the T-shaped inscription, but it would also retain its own emulsion (on both sides) -- since no one had scraped emulsion off either side of this copy film. . . .
Once I recognized that this lateral X-ray film was a forgery, I had a shocking insight. None of the three extant JFK skull X-ray films is an original—all three must be copies. In this case, it means that all three are altered images. Most likely, all of the original skull X-ray films (of five to six total) had to be destroyed because they contained forensic proof that Oswald was not the sole assassin.
In Chesser’s review (at the 2015 JFK Lancer Conference), he confirmed my observations of the T-shaped inscription:
"Dr. Mantik described emulsion over the T-shaped wax mark, which was attributed to Ed Reed marking the film. I agree with him that the surface of the film appeared smooth, when viewed at eye level."
Like me, Dr. Chesser saw that emulsion was fully present on both sides of this lateral X-ray film, thus leaving no doubt that the film is a duplicate. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, 2024, pp. 201-203)
-- In September 1977, shortly before the HSCA publicly displayed the JFK autopsy x-rays for the first time, Dr. Russell Morgan, the radiologist on the Clark Panel, said he was no longer so certain that the bullet that hit JFK’s head was an FMJ bullet, and suggested that the high fragment trail might be more consistent with a frangible bullet than with an FMJ bullet because the fragmentation of the bullet was so severe. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 206)
Remember that it was Dr. Morgan who told Howard Donahue that the Clark Panel believed the 6.5 mm object in the rear outer table of the skull was a ricochet fragment.
-- Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik, among others, have noted that the high fragment trail expands from front to back, not back to front, which indicates the bullet struck the front of the head, since fragment trails naturally tend to expand in skulls after penetration.
Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik have also noted that the larger fragments of the high fragment trail are at the end of the trail's expansion, and that the science of ballistics tells us that in a group of bullet fragments the larger fragments will travel farther from the entry point. Dr. Chesser explains this in conjunction with his identification of a right-front entry wound on the skull x-rays:
The most important finding here is the proximity of these tiny metallic fragments to this bone defect. This location, on the intracranial side of the bony defect, is highly suggestive of an entry wound. One of the principles of skull ballistics is that the largest fragments travel the furthest from the entry site, with the smallest fragments traveling the least distance, and that is exactly what is seen on this right lateral skull x-ray. (“The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of Brain Photographs,” November 27, 2017, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-application-of-forensic-principles-for-the-analysis-of-the-autopsy-skull-x-rays-of-president-kennedy-and-a-review-of-the-brain-photographs)
Dr. Mantik adds,
When you look at the x-rays that are stored at the archives now, on the lateral x-ray there is a fragment trail. It actually expands from front to back. . . .
Now why is that important? Well, what we know is that the larger bullet fragments travel farther, whereas the smaller ones tend to stay near the entry site. That’s what we see on these X-rays. In other words, we can reasonably interpret these as being consistent with a frontal bullet, but being radically inconsistent with a posterior bullet. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 193)
Nobody cares what an amateur like you thinks about the autopsy evidence, especially given that you've seen so little of it.
-
MG:Below are some additional problems with the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. I didn't list them in the OP because I didn't want the OP to turn into a book. I feared the OP was already getting a bit long.
-- The lateral skull x-rays show a physically impossible white patch in the lower half of the right-rear part of the skull. The patch's optical-density (OD) measurements are almost the same as those of the petrous bone, which is a physical impossibility. According to the OD measurements of the white patch, the skull bone in this location extends nearly to the other side of the skull, which is a physical impossibility.
-- Dr. Michael Chesser examined and took OD measurements of a pre-mortem JFK skull x-ray at the Kennedy Library in Boston in order to provide a control for the OD readings of the white patch. He saw nothing resembling the white patch on the pre-mortem skull x-ray, and his OD measurements of the pre-mortem x-ray showed far less density than the OD measurements of the white patch on the lateral autopsy skull x-rays.
-- Another fact that proves the autopsy skull x-rays have been altered is the fact that the white patch on the lateral skull x-rays is nowhere to be seen on the AP skull x-ray. If the white patch had been on the original lateral x-rays, it would be on the AP x-ray as well--indeed, it would very obvious and easy to see on the AP x-ray. But, there is no trace of it on the extant AP x-ray. This is a physical impossibility, as Dr. David Mantik has explained:
It should also be emphasized that, although this white patch is obvious on both lateral skull X-rays, it is nowhere to be seen on the AP (frontal) skull X-ray. In the physical universe that we know, this is impossible. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 9)
-- Additional clear physical proof that the autopsy skull x-rays are not the originals is the fact that on the lateral x-ray of the neck area there is a T-shaped symbol etched onto the x-ray, but there is no emulsion missing from the x-ray at this spot on either side of the film, proving this x-ray is a copy and not an original.
Custer, the autopsy x-ray technician, said he made various marks on the x-rays for identification purposes. When you etch a symbol or letter into x-ray film, naturally there will be emulsion missing from the film at that location on that side of the film. However, there is no emulsion missing from either side of the film of this lateral x-ray, which is hard physical proof that the x-ray is a copy and not an original.
Dr. Mantik made this historic discovery during his final viewing of the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Michael Chesser confirmed the fact that no emulsion is missing from either side of the x-ray film when he examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives. Dr. Mantik:
The T-shaped inscription must have been etched into the emulsion on the original (never-released) lateral X-ray film. Such etching is easy to do, e.g., by using a fingernail, metal file, or nail. The missing emulsion would have been easy to detect, especially while viewing the surface at an angle to a light source. Inspection of the other side would clearly have shown no missing emulsion (because the etching was only done on one side of the double emulsion film). Realizing this, during my final visit to the Archives (April 12, 2001), I scrutinized these emulsions very carefully.
I first asked Steve Tilley, the JFK archivist, to remove the X-ray film from its transparent plastic sheath so that I could view the surfaces directly. He did so. And then, after viewing at multiple angles, I recognized that no emulsion was missing from either side of the film! The implication was inescapable: this could only be a copy film—not an original. That is because the copy film would preserve the image of the T-shaped inscription, but it would also retain its own emulsion (on both sides) -- since no one had scraped emulsion off either side of this copy film. . . .
Once I recognized that this lateral X-ray film was a forgery, I had a shocking insight. None of the three extant JFK skull X-ray films is an original—all three must be copies. In this case, it means that all three are altered images. Most likely, all of the original skull X-ray films (of five to six total) had to be destroyed because they contained forensic proof that Oswald was not the sole assassin.
In Chesser’s review (at the 2015 JFK Lancer Conference), he confirmed my observations of the T-shaped inscription:
"Dr. Mantik described emulsion over the T-shaped wax mark, which was attributed to Ed Reed marking the film. I agree with him that the surface of the film appeared smooth, when viewed at eye level."
Like me, Dr. Chesser saw that emulsion was fully present on both sides of this lateral X-ray film, thus leaving no doubt that the film is a duplicate. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, 2024, pp. 201-203)
-- In September 1977, shortly before the HSCA publicly displayed the JFK autopsy x-rays for the first time, Dr. Russell Morgan, the radiologist on the Clark Panel, said he was no longer so certain that the bullet that hit JFK’s head was an FMJ bullet, and suggested that the high fragment trail might be more consistent with a frangible bullet than with an FMJ bullet because the fragmentation of the bullet was so severe. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 206)
Remember that it was Dr. Morgan who told Howard Donahue that the Clark Panel believed the 6.5 mm object in the rear outer table of the skull was a ricochet fragment.
-- Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik, among others, have noted that the high fragment trail expands from front to back, not back to front, which indicates the bullet struck the front of the head, since fragment trails naturally tend to expand in skulls after penetration.
Dr. Chesser and Dr. Mantik have also noted that the larger fragments of the high fragment trail are at the end of the trail's expansion, and that the science of ballistics tells us that in a group of bullet fragments the larger fragments will travel farther from the entry point. Dr. Chesser explains this in conjunction with his identification of a right-front entry wound on the skull x-rays:
The most important finding here is the proximity of these tiny metallic fragments to this bone defect. This location, on the intracranial side of the bony defect, is highly suggestive of an entry wound. One of the principles of skull ballistics is that the largest fragments travel the furthest from the entry site, with the smallest fragments traveling the least distance, and that is exactly what is seen on this right lateral skull x-ray. (“The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of Brain Photographs,” November 27, 2017, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-application-of-forensic-principles-for-the-analysis-of-the-autopsy-skull-x-rays-of-president-kennedy-and-a-review-of-the-brain-photographs)
Dr. Mantik adds,
When you look at the x-rays that are stored at the archives now, on the lateral x-ray there is a fragment trail. It actually expands from front to back. . . .
Now why is that important? Well, what we know is that the larger bullet fragments travel farther, whereas the smaller ones tend to stay near the entry site. That’s what we see on these X-rays. In other words, we can reasonably interpret these as being consistent with a frontal bullet, but being radically inconsistent with a posterior bullet. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis,, p. 193)
JC:
Nobody cares what an amateur like you thinks about the autopsy evidence, especially given that you've seen so little of it.
In other words, your response to all the forensic, radiologic, and ballistics evidence discussed by Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Morgan is to once again fall back on your dodge that I am merely presenting my own baseless opinions.
It is worth quoting what real medical experts have said about Dr. Mantik's OD research on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
Dr. Greg Henkelmann, himself a radiation oncologist and physicist:
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. His unusual background exposes the government-sponsored coverup that has deceived Americans into believing that Oswald was a “lone wolf.” It is now past time to be crying wolf.(In Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, p. 157)
Dr. William Keough, a medical physicist at the Edinburgh Cancer Centre in Scotland:
His [Mantik’s] logical and scientific approach refutes the many inconsistencies that officials have promulgated as fact since the 22nd of November 1963. From the 6.5 mm metallic fragment in the AP autopsy X-ray to the “black rectangle” patch on the back of President Kennedy’s skull identified in the copy of the Zapruder film, to name a few.... Although the majority of Americans still do not believe the Warren Commissions’ fairy tale, only a limited number of people will be in a position to evaluate the overwhelming scientific and medical evidence that supports a different narrative. (In Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, pp. 157-158)
Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist:
I viewed the original autopsy skull X-rays at the archives this year [2015] and I confirmed his [Dr. Mantik’s] optical density readings of the lateral skull film, which support his conclusion that there was manipulation. Hopefully there will come a time when better copies of the autopsy x-rays and photographs will be made available for review by a wider audience and the evidence will speak for itself. I applaud Dr. David Mantik for his courage in reporting the truth. . . .
The bright object [in the AP JFK autopsy X-ray] measures 6.5 mm in diameter, and there is no counterpart found on the lateral image. There was no discussion of this in the Warren Commission report, and no official x-ray interpretation was included in the report. No bullet fragment of this size was removed at the time of the autopsy. Within the outline of this bright object are the shapes of two fragments. I agree with Dr. David Mantik that the film was copied, and this bright object was added to the image. (In Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, pp. 158-159)
MG:If so, why do you suppose the lone-gunman view is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world? It's not like the lone-gunman view has suffered from a lack of cheerleading and advocacy by many legacy news outlets. Most people just don't buy what you're selling.
JC: I'd estimate the 90+% of those people are ignorant of the evidence of Oswald's guilt. . . .
LOL! That's the same thing that Moon-landing deniers, 9/11 Truthers, Holocaust deniers, and Flat Earthers say about the fact that most people reject their theories. "Very few people know the facts about the evidence for our views!"
and probably got most of their knowledge from Oliver Stone's @&%$ movie.
More comedy. So a movie made in 1991 is the reason your view on the JFK case is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world!
This is similar to the lame excuse that 9/11 Truthers, Moon-landing deniers, etc., offer to explain why most people don't buy their theories. They complain that news outlets and TV networks haven't given their views a fair hearing.
Yet, you guys certainly can't claim that your version of the JFK case has not received plenty of favorable coverage, and often outright advocacy, by legacy news outlets, but most people still don't buy what you're selling.
-
I thought it would be worthwhile to summarize in one post some of the major problems with the JFK medical evidence.
You thought wrong.
-
It is remarkable that WC apologists who (correctly) accept the EOP entry site refuse to admit that the EOP site proves the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.
Yes, I agree: The evidence strongly favors the EOP site. I was encouraged to see Lance Payette state that he is convinced by Pat Speer's arguments for the EOP site. Dr. Larry Sturdivan, the former HSCA wound ballistics consultant, argues for the EOP site in his book The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination. Dr. David Mantik likewise argues for the EOP site in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis. Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, argued for the EOP site and noted that the area of the brain beneath the phantom cowlick entry site is undamaged:
We have autopsy photographs that show the top of JFK's head. Everyone agrees (including Dr. Bob Artwohl) that intact cerebral cortex is visible. If you are a neuroanatomist, you can identify the cerebral cortex (superior parietal lobule visible). What's the significance of that? Simple: that is the part of cortex that is immediately under the high entrance wound -- so, the brain at the point of the high entrance wound is not damaged. Now that is indeed a magic bullet. ("What Struck John?" pp. 4-5, https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
Five autopsy witnesses -- Sibert, O'Neill, Lipsey, Stringer, and Kellerman -- said the rear head entry wound was near the EOP or the hairline. The three autopsy doctors insisted to their dying days that the EOP site was correct.
The problem is that the brain photos show no damage whatsoever to the right occipital lobe, but a bullet that entered near the EOP could not have missed tearing through the right occipital lobe, as the HSCA FPP correctly pointed out. The FPP hammered the autopsy doctors on this point, and they had no explanation for it. However, the FPP argument against the EOP site only works if the brain photos are authentic.
The evidence that the brain photos are fraudulent is truly impressive. As experts from both sides have confirmed, the brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue. Yet, multiple sets of optical-density measurements have confirmed that about 2/3 of the right brain is missing in the autopsy skull x-rays, a fact that Dr. Fred Hodges noted in 1975 when he served on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel. Humes himself told JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away. A number of witnesses who saw the brain said that 1/4 to 1/2 of it was missing. And, we have a veritable mountain of eyewitness testimony that bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto 16 surfaces, and that's not counting the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie brought into the ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins.
Only those who are emotionally committed to believing in the lone-gunman theory will continue to believe the autopsy brain photos are genuine.
-
It is remarkable that WC apologists who (correctly) accept the EOP entry site refuse to admit that the EOP site proves the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.
It is remarkable that MTG considers himself to be competent to make such a judgement.
Yes, I agree: The evidence strongly favors the EOP site. I was encouraged to see Lance Payette state that he is convinced by Pat Speer's arguments for the EOP site. Dr. Larry Sturdivan, the former HSCA wound ballistics consultant, argues for the EOP site in his book The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination. Dr. David Mantik likewise argues for the EOP site in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis. Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, argued for the EOP site and noted that the area of the brain beneath the phantom cowlick entry site is undamaged:
We have autopsy photographs that show the top of JFK's head. Everyone agrees (including Dr. Bob Artwohl) that intact cerebral cortex is visible. If you are a neuroanatomist, you can identify the cerebral cortex (superior parietal lobule visible). What's the significance of that? Simple: that is the
part of cortex that is immediately under the high entrance wound -- so, the brain at the point of the high entrance wound is not damaged. Now that is indeed a magic bullet. ("What Struck John?" pp. 4-5, https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
Five autopsy witnesses -- Sibert, O'Neill, Lipsey, Stringer, and Kellerman -- said the rear head entry wound was near the EOP or the hairline. The three autopsy doctors insisted to their dying days that the EOP site was correct.
Not surprising that a person totally unqualified to render judgements about the medical evidence would cite other people totally unqualified to render judgements about the medical evidence.
The problem is that the brain photos show no damage whatsoever to the right occipital lobe, but a bullet that entered near the EOP could not have missed tearing through the right occipital lobe, as the HSCA FPP correctly pointed out. The FPP hammered the autopsy doctors on this point, and they had no explanation for it. However, the FPP argument against the EOP site only works if the brain photos are authentic.
MTG tries to substitute his judgement of what the medical evidence is based on a few leaked photos and x-rays for the unanimous judgement of a panel of some of the most highly qualified forensic medical examiners of their day who saw ALL the photos and ALL the x-rays. So who should we believe? MTG or the FPP? Of course, the question answers itself. It is remarkable that WC apologists who (correctly) accept the EOP entry site refuse to admit that the EOP site proves the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.
The evidence that the brain photos are fraudulent is truly impressive. As experts from both sides have confirmed, the brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue. Yet, multiple sets of optical-density measurements have confirmed that about 2/3 of the right brain is missing in the autopsy skull x-rays, a fact that Dr. Fred Hodges noted in 1975 when he served on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel. Humes himself told JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away. A number of witnesses who saw the brain said that 1/4 to 1/2 of it was missing. And, we have a veritable mountain of eyewitness testimony that bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto 16 surfaces, and that's not counting the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie brought into the ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins. [/quote]
The evidence that MTG is an amateur hack trying to perform analysis that requires years of medical training and experience is truly impressive.
Only those who are emotionally committed to believing in the lone-gunman theory will continue to believe the autopsy brain photos are genuine.
Only extremely gullible CT fanatics would believe MTG is competent to make such judgements based an a smattering of the medical evidence he has seen.
-
The overpressure that would result in the witnessed brain splatter is of such a force that the intact brain in evidence would be impossible by science...Paul O'Connor said the remaining brain in Kennedy's head was small enough to fit in the palm of a hand...It would be impossible for this remnant brain to weigh above an average brain...Bugliosi equivocated around it but never answered this...
Obviously the swapped brain had to be gotten rid of because the plotters realized it would expose the conspiracy...
-
The overpressure that would result in the witnessed brain splatter is of such a force that the intact brain in evidence would be impossible by science...Paul O'Connor said the remaining brain in Kennedy's head was small enough to fit in the palm of a hand...It would be impossible for this remnant brain to weigh above an average brain...Bugliosi equivocated around it but never answered this...
Obviously the swapped brain had to be gotten rid of because the plotters realized it would expose the conspiracy...
Obviously, we have another unqualified amateur hack weighing in on the medical evidence citing another unqualified amateur hack who witnessed the autopsy. I could offer my own 2 cents regarding the medical evidence, but I prefer to leave those judgements to the professionals who had the training and experience to do that.
-
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 01:23:20 PM
It is remarkable that WC apologists who (correctly) accept the EOP entry site refuse to admit that the EOP site proves the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent.
JC: It is remarkable that MTG considers himself to be competent to make such a judgement.
Given that you can't speak English at a high-school level, and given how many times you've been caught committing inexcusable gaffes, it is remarkable that you consider yourself competent to be judging anyone else's arguments, much less mine.
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 01:23:20 PM
Yes, I agree: The evidence strongly favors the EOP site. I was encouraged to see Lance Payette state that he is convinced by Pat Speer's arguments for the EOP site. Dr. Larry Sturdivan, the former HSCA wound ballistics consultant, argues for the EOP site in his book The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination. Dr. David Mantik likewise argues for the EOP site in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis. Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, argued for the EOP site and noted that the area of the brain beneath the phantom cowlick entry site is undamaged:
We have autopsy photographs that show the top of JFK's head. Everyone agrees (including Dr. Bob Artwohl) that intact cerebral cortex is visible. If you are a neuroanatomist, you can identify the cerebral cortex (superior parietal lobule visible). What's the significance of that? Simple: that is the part of cortex that is immediately under the high entrance wound -- so, the brain at the point of the high entrance wound is not damaged. Now that is indeed a magic bullet. ("What Struck John?" pp. 4-5, https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)
Five autopsy witnesses -- Sibert, O'Neill, Lipsey, Stringer, and Kellerman -- said the rear head entry wound was near the EOP or the hairline. The three autopsy doctors insisted to their dying days that the EOP site was correct.
JC: Not surprising that a person totally unqualified to render judgements about the medical evidence would cite other people totally unqualified to render judgements about the medical evidence.
LOL! Uh, so the autopsy doctors were "totally unqualified to render judgments about the medical evidence"?! Sheesh, did you just skim over those paragraphs and miss the citation of the autopsy doctors?! Your replies are just one clown show after another.
Dr. Joseph Riley was "totally unqualified" to talk about the medical evidence?! Really?! Dr. Riley was a highly respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and neuropathology. His neuroscience research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York.
Dr. David Mantik is "totally unqualified" to talk about the medical evidence?! He has viewed the autopsy materials at the National Archives more often than any other medical expert, 29 times in all, and has been studying the medical evidence longer than any other medical expert who has written about the JFK case. He is one of only three medical experts who have done optical-density (OD) measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays, and he has done more OD measurements than either of the two other experts. He's board-certified in radiation oncology, licensed in radiology, holds a doctorate in physics, and is a former professor of physics at the University of Michigan.
And Dr. Larry Sturdivan, who was the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant, is "totally unqualified" to talk about the medical evidence?! He worked as a physical scientist at the Wound Ballistics Branch of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds for years. You realize that Sturdivan is a lone-gunman theorist, right? You know this, right?
Ah, but here's the problem with Sturdivan for your side: He has admitted that the 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment and that no FMJ bullet would ever deposit a fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entry. Those are two devastating admissions that your side just can't stomach.
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 01:23:20 PM
The problem is that the brain photos show no damage whatsoever to the right occipital lobe, but a bullet that entered near the EOP could not have missed tearing through the right occipital lobe, as the HSCA FPP correctly pointed out. The FPP hammered the autopsy doctors on this point, and they had no explanation for it. However, the FPP argument against the EOP site only works if the brain photos are authentic.
JC: MTG tries to substitute his judgement of what the medical evidence is based on a few leaked photos and x-rays for the unanimous judgement of a panel of some of the most highly qualified forensic medical examiners of their day who saw ALL the photos and ALL the x-rays. So who should we believe? MTG or the FPP? Of course, the question answers itself.
Virtually every word of this dodge is false. Drs. Mantik, Chesser, Aguilar, and McClellan have seen the autopsy photos and x-rays at the National Archives. Moreover, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that several decent copies of the autopsy photos became available in 1981 (i.e., from the Fox Set) and that the HSCA released decent copies of the autopsy x-rays in 1978.
You again ignore the fact that Dr. Michael Baden, the FPP chairman, admitted to Vincent Bugliosi in a recorded interview that the autopsy brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue, and that this fact has been confirmed by Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser, both of whom examined the brain photos at the National Archives.
Let me remind you that the autopsy doctors saw the actual head wounds in person, and handled the skull and the skull fragments with their own hands, whereas the FPP doctors could only rely on an incomplete set of autopsy photos and x-rays. The FPP doctors did not see "all" the photos and x-rays because we know for an absolute fact that a number of photos and x-rays are missing from the extant collection of autopsy materials.
If you're now back-pedaling to the view that the FPP was correct about the location of the rear head entry wound ("So who should we believe? MTG or the FPP?"), then you need to explain how the brain tissue directly under the cowlick site is undamaged in the autopsy photos, a fact confirmed by WC apologist Dr. Robert Artwohl when he viewed the autopsy materials at the National Archives. You need to deal with the fact that the FPP, like the Clark Panel, relocated the entry wound up to the cowlick site based on the now-debunked assumption that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment that was deposited in the outer table of the skull as the bullet entered the skull. You need to deal with the fact that nobody at the autopsy reported seeing an entry wound in the cowlick area, that every single witness who commented on the wound's location said it was much farther down on the skull, near the EOP/hairline.
I notice you made no attempt to explain how the brain photos could be authentic when the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, a fact first noticed way back in 1975 by Dr. Fred Hodges, one of the leading radiologists in the world at the time, a fact later also confirmed by Humes himself in 1992, and when multiple sets of OD measurements have proven that 2/3 of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays.
I notice you also ducked the fact that numerous eyewitnesses saw brain matter from JFK's brain on 16 surfaces, and that Jackie Kennedy brought a "large chunk of brain" into the Parkland ER and handed it to Dr. Jenkins, a fact that even Bugliosi did not dispute. I guess even you realize it would be discrediting and hilarious for you to claim that all that brain matter added up to no more than 2 ounces.
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 01:23:20 PM
The evidence that the brain photos are fraudulent is truly impressive. As experts from both sides have confirmed, the brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue. Yet, multiple sets of optical-density measurements have confirmed that about 2/3 of the right brain is missing in the autopsy skull x-rays, a fact that Dr. Fred Hodges noted in 1975 when he served on the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel. Humes himself told JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away. A number of witnesses who saw the brain said that 1/4 to 1/2 of it was missing. And, we have a veritable mountain of eyewitness testimony that bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto 16 surfaces, and that's not counting the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie brought into the ER and handed to Dr. Jenkins.
JC: The evidence that MTG is an amateur hack trying to perform analysis that requires years of medical training and experience is truly impressive.
Perhaps you lack the capacity to grasp the obvious fact that the brain photos cannot be authentic because the skull x-rays show 2/3 of the right brain to be missing and because so much brain tissue was blown from JFK's brain, but you only make yourself look foolish and disingenuous when you float your flim-flam about needing "years of medical training" to understand this fact.
You don't need "years of medical training" to understand that a brain with less than 1-2 ounces of missing tissue cannot be the same brain (1) that is missing 2/3 of its substance on its righthand side in the skull x-rays, (2) that had pieces of tissue blown from it that fell onto 16 surfaces, and (3) that had a "large chunk" blown from it that was handed to Dr. Jenkins by Jackie Kennedy.
Furthermore, medical experts, i.e., people who have "years of medical training," have pointed out that the brain photos cannot be authentic for the above-mentioned reasons.
I notice you said nothing, not one word, about the OD measurements of the skull x-rays, about Dr. Hodges' finding that the x-rays show a large part of the right brain to be missing, about Dr. Humes's statement to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away, and about the numerous eyewitness accounts of a large amount of brain tissue being blown from JFK's brain.
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 01:23:20 PM
Only those who are emotionally committed to believing in the lone-gunman theory will continue to believe the autopsy brain photos are genuine.
JC: Only extremely gullible CT fanatics would believe MTG is competent to make such judgements based an a smattering of the medical evidence he has seen.
Yeah, uh-huh. You bet. Too bad for you and your ducking and dodging that so many medical experts have likewise observed that the brain photos cannot be authentic given that the skull x-rays show 2/3 of the right brain to be missing and given the large amount of brain tissue that numerous witnesses saw blown from JFK's brain.
-
Given that you can't speak English at a high-school level, and given how many times you've been caught committing inexcusable gaffes, it is remarkable that you consider yourself competent to be judging anyone else's arguments, much less mine. {/quote]
You're never funnier than when you put on your Mr. Smarty Pants act.
All I have to do is be more competent than you which isn't a very high bar to clear.
LOL! Uh, so the autopsy doctors were "totally unqualified to render judgments about the medical evidence"?! Sheesh, did you just skim over those paragraphs and miss the citation of the autopsy doctors?! Your replies are just one clown show after another.
When I saw MTG quote half a sentence, I figured he was quoting me out of context, but i had to go back and see what I had written to see if he had misrepresentd what I wrote. He had.
This is what MTG said and my reply:
MTG: Five autopsy witnesses -- Sibert, O'Neill, Lipsey, Stringer, and Kellerman -- said the rear head entry wound was near the EOP or the hairline. The three autopsy doctors insisted to their dying days that the EOP site was correct.
ME: Not surprising that a person totally unqualified to render judgements about the medical evidence would cite other people totally unqualified to render judgements about the medical evidence.
The five witnesses were clearly not qualified to render judgements about medical evidence and the unqualified person that I was referring to that cited them was MTG himself. A real buffoon. A legend in his own mind. .
Dr. Joseph Riley was "totally unqualified" to talk about the medical evidence?! Really?! Dr. Riley was a highly respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and neuropathology. His neuroscience research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York.
When did I say he was unqualified? Hint: NEVER.
Dr. David Mantik is "totally unqualified" to talk about the medical evidence?!
Yes he is. He is an oncologist. That's a cancer doctor. No qualifications to render judgements about forensic medical issues. MTG thinks anybody with "Dr." in front of their name is an expert on all things related to the medical evidence. He'd probably cite Dr. Jill Biden if she expressed skepticism about the autopsy findings or the FPP review
He has viewed the autopsy materials at the National Archives more often than any other medical expert, 29 times in all, and has been studying the medical evidence longer than any other medical expert who has written about the JFK case. He is one of only three medical experts who have done optical-density (OD) measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays, and he has done more OD measurements than either of the two other experts. He's board-certified in radiation oncology, licensed in radiology, holds a doctorate in physics, and is a former professor of physics at the University of Michigan.
Good for him. Did he discuss his findings with any actual forensic medical examiners or did he just wing it and offer his own conclusions? FYI. If JFK had died of cancer, Mantik would have had the expertise to comment on it. He actually died of a gunshot wound to the head. Maybe Mantik had one or two patients over the years who were in such pain that they decided to put a bullet in their head, but that would be the closest Mantik ever got to a victim of a gunshot.
And Dr. Larry Sturdivan, who was the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant, is "totally unqualified" to talk about the medical evidence?! He worked as a physical scientist at the Wound Ballistics Branch of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds for years. You realize that Sturdivan is a lone-gunman theorist, right? You know this, right?
I never said Sturdivan was "totally unqualified". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and chalk it up to your rather poor reading comprehension instead of a bald faced lie by you. MTG seems to think that when I call him unqualified, I am also referring to the people he has cited. Only some of those people are unqualified.
Ah, but here's the problem with Sturdivan for your side: He has admitted that the 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment and that no FMJ bullet would ever deposit a fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entry. Those are two devastating admissions that your side just can't stomach.
So he doesn't think the 6.5mm is a fragments. What does he think it is and tell us the significance of that.
Virtually every word of this dodge is false. Drs. Mantik, Chesser, Aguilar, and McClellan have seen the autopsy photos and x-rays at the National Archives. Moreover, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that several decent copies of the autopsy photos became available in 1981 (i.e., from the Fox Set) and that the HSCA released decent copies of the autopsy x-rays in 1978.
Mantik is unqualified for reasons I have already stated. Gary Aguilar has been posting kooky stuff on forums for as long as you have. I remember his crap from the Prodigy forum back in the early 1990s. For those who don't know, Gary Aguilar is an ophthalmologist from San Francisco. As far as I know, he is very good at his job. That hardly qualifies him as an expert in forensic medicine. But he has a "Dr." in front of his name and that is good enough for MTG.
Dr. Chessar is a neurologist who believes JFK sustained a frontal entry wound. Being a neurologist does not qualify him to distinguish entry wounds from exit wounds. Again, MTG cites someone who is outside their area of expertise. That's because every forensic medical examiner who has seen the medical evidence agrees with the original finding that JFK was shot in the back of the head.
Dr. Robert McClelland (not McClellan) was a surgeon who was summoned to the ER at Parkland. JFK was only in the ER a short time before being pronounced dead. In that short time, most of the efforts were at maintaining JFK's vital signs in what I'm sure they realized right away was a losing battle. JFK was on his back the whole time and the head wound was never treated. In the Z-film we see a large flap of skull was hanging down the right side of JFK's head but no one at Parkland noticed that which indicates Jackie had probably closed that flaps as best she could but couldn't close the hole in the back of his head because that piece had been blown away. Since they never examined the head wound at Parkland, It's easy to understand why they would have thought the blowout was confined to the back of the head when in fact i involved the entire upper right side of his head.
The following passage from McClelland's WC testimony is most telling:
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything to add which you think might be helpful in any way to the Commission?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No; I think not except again to emphasize perhaps that some of our statements to the press about the nature of the wound may have been misleading, possibly--probably ,because of our fault in tolling it in such a way that they misinterpreted our certainty of being able to tell entrance from exit wounds, which as we say, we generally can make an educated guess about these things but cannot be certain about them. I think they attributed too much certainty to us about that.
By his own admission, McClelland said the impressions of the nature of JFK's wounds were educated guesses, which do not trump the findings of either the original autopsy team, or the FFP review.
You again ignore the fact that Dr. Michael Baden, the FPP chairman, admitted to Vincent Bugliosi in a recorded interview that the autopsy brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue, and that this fact has been confirmed by Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser, both of whom examined the brain photos at the National Archives.
So?
Let me remind you that the autopsy doctors saw the actual head wounds in person, and handled the skull and the skull fragments with their own hands, whereas the FPP doctors could only rely on an incomplete set of autopsy photos and x-rays.
This is really laughable. They saw far more and better photos than you have ever seen as well as the original x-rays, have far more training and expierience in forensic medicine than you will ever have, yet you think you car capable of making a better judgement about the nature of JFK's wounds than the FPP. It doesn't get more ridiculous than that.
The FPP doctors did not see "all" the photos and x-rays because we know for an absolute fact that a number of photos and x-rays are missing from the extant collection of autopsy materials.
They saw a hell of a lot more than you and they knew a hell of a lot more than you.
If you're now back-pedaling to the view that the FPP was correct about the location of the rear head entry wound ("So who should we believe? MTG or the FPP?"), then you need to explain how the brain tissue directly under the cowlick site is undamaged in the autopsy photos, a fact confirmed by WC apologist Dr. Robert Artwohl when he viewed the autopsy materials at the National Archives. You need to deal with the fact that the FPP, like the Clark Panel, relocated the entry wound up to the cowlick site based on the now-debunked assumption that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment that was deposited in the outer table of the skull as the bullet entered the skull. You need to deal with the fact that nobody at the autopsy reported seeing an entry wound in the cowlick area, that every single witness who commented on the wound's location said it was much farther down on the skull, near the EOP/hairline.
I really don't care whether the autopsy team or the FPP accurately placed the entrance wound, they both agree that JFK was shot in the back of the head which fits with all the other available forensic evidence, the fragmented bullet found in the limo which had been fired by the same rifle that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and which had also fired the spent shells found at the location where several witnesses spotted the shooter. Given these facts, it's comical that people treat the assassination as if it is a mystery.
I notice you made no attempt to explain how the brain photos could be authentic when the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, a fact first noticed way back in 1975 by Dr. Fred Hodges, one of the leading radiologists in the world at the time, a fact later also confirmed by Humes himself in 1992, and when multiple sets of OD measurements have proven that 2/3 of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays.
Unlike you, I know how to stay in my lane. I don't assume that reading some kook conspiracy books somehow makes me qualified to interpret the medical evidence. I leave that to the people with actual expertise.
I notice you also ducked the fact that numerous eyewitnesses saw brain matter from JFK's brain on 16 surfaces, and that Jackie Kennedy brought a "large chunk of brain" into the Parkland ER and handed it to Dr. Jenkins, a fact that even Bugliosi did not dispute. I guess even you realize it would be discrediting and hilarious for you to claim that all that brain matter added up to no more than 2 ounces.
I don't recall ever making such a claim. I don't recall even thinking that. Please cite where I wrote that.
Perhaps you lack the capacity to grasp the obvious fact that the brain photos cannot be authentic because the skull x-rays show 2/3 of the right brain to be missing and because so much brain tissue was blown from JFK's brain, but you only make yourself look foolish and disingenuous when you float your flim-flam about needing "years of medical training" to understand this fact.
I'm not the dipshit who thinks he can interpret the medica evidence based on a handful of leaked photos and x-rays.
You don't need "years of medical training" to understand that a brain with less than 1-2 ounces of missing tissue cannot be the same brain (1) that is missing 2/3 of its substance on its righthand side in the skull x-rays, (2) that had pieces of tissue blown from it that fell onto 16 surfaces, and (3) that had a "large chunk" blown from it that was handed to Dr. Jenkins by Jackie Kennedy.
Furthermore, medical experts, i.e., people who have "years of medical training," have pointed out that the brain photos cannot be authentic for the above-mentioned reasons.
Medical experts? You mean like oncologists or ophthalmologists. Or did you get that from a gynecologist?
I notice you said nothing, not one word, about the OD measurements of the skull x-rays, about Dr. Hodges' finding that the x-rays show a large part of the right brain to be missing, about Dr. Humes's statement to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away, and about the numerous eyewitness accounts of a large amount of brain tissue being blown from JFK's brain.
Just what could I contribute? [quoote]
Yeah, uh-huh. You bet. Too bad for you and your ducking and dodging that so many medical experts have likewise observed that the brain photos cannot be authentic given that the skull x-rays show 2/3 of the right brain to be missing and given the large amount of brain tissue that numerous witnesses saw blown from JFK's brain.
[/quote]
Funny how the FPP never came to that conclusion. Just a lot of guys who don't know how to stay in their lane. Guys like you.