Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos

[John Corbett]

It's always amusing to see amateur sleuths try to apply their limited knowledge to a highly technical field. I prefer to go with what actual experts in the field have to say on the subject. The FPP, composed of some of the most respected medical examiners of their day including WC critic Cyril Wecht, UNANIMOUSLY concurred with the original finding that JFK was struck by two shots fired from above and behind although they did reposition where they thought the entry wound in the back of the head was.

We have a choice here. We can go with the FPP or we can go with MTG? Not a tough call for me.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Since we have some new participants in the forum, I'm bumping this thread. I think objective readers will see that the evidence proves that the JFK autopsy brain photos are fraudulent and cannot be photos of JFK's brain. I think objective readers will also see that lone-gunman theorists have no rational, credible explanation for this crucial evidence.

Here is a summary of the evidence:

-- Former HSCA FPP chairman Dr. Michael Baden acknowledged to famous WC defender Vincent Bugliosi that the autopsy brain photos show "less than" 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing. Bugliosi did not realize that Baden's disclosure was devastating evidence against the autopsy brain photos. Indeed, Bugliosi trumpeted Baden's disclosure to "refute" the eyewitnesses who said a large amount of JFK's brain was gone.

-- But those eyewitnesses were surely correct. Why? Because we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto 16 surfaces. Significantly, several witnesses said the tissue was gray or white. About 40% of brain tissue is gray and about 60% is white. Those 16 bits of brain tissue alone certainly added up to more than 2 ounces, not to mention that it exceeded "less than 1-2 ounces."

We also know that Jackie Kennedy brought a "large chunk of brain" into the Parkland ER and handed it to Dr. Jenkins, who then handed it to a Secret Service agent. That chunk of brain surely weighed at least 2 ounces. 2 ounces of brain tissue is about the size of a golf ball.

-- The autopsy report impossibly says JFK's brain weighed 1,500 grams. The average male brain weighs about 1,350 grams. 1,500 grams equals 53 ounces. 1,350 grams equals 47 ounces.

There is no way that JFK's brain weighed anything close to 1,500, not only because so much brain matter was blown from his skull but because the autopsy skull x-rays show at least 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, and multiple optical-density (OD) measurements of the skull x-rays confirm that only about 30% of the right brain is present in the x-rays.

This is hard scientific evidence that the brain photos are fraudulent.

In addition, it should be noted that in 1992, before any OD measurements had been done on the skull x-rays, none other than Dr. James Humes, the chief JFK autopsy doctor, admitted to JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], May 27, 1992, p. 2798).

When Humes revealed this, he was unaware that in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, the then-chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, examined the skull x-rays and found they showed a "goodly portion" of the right brain to be "missing."

BTW, the term "goodly portion" is a common and recognized idiom that means "substantial," "considerable," "sizeable." One can find the term "goodly portion" used in medical journals, including JAMA. Google AI says, "The phrase 'goodly portion' is used throughout the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and its network journals as an idiom representing a large or substantial amount."

-- A number of eyewitnesses who got good looks at the damage to JFK's head said that a substantial part of the brain was blown away. These witnesses included mortician Tom Robinson, assistant autopsy photographer Floyd Riebe, Secret Service agent Clint Hill (who stared into the large hole in JFK's head for several minutes from 3-4 feet away), and FBI agent Francis O'Neill (one of the two FBI agents who observed the autopsy, and observed it from close range most of the time).

-- The autopsy photographer, John Stringer, told the ARRB he was certain he did not take the extant autopsy brain photos.

My posts in this thread present a detailed review of this evidence, including sources. The above is just a summary. To gain a better understanding of this crucial evidence, and to see the vacuous attempts of WC apologists to explain it, I recommend going back and reading the rest of the thread.

To follow up on these points for those who have not seen any of the JFK autopsy brain photos, we should understand that the photos show a large laceration (cut) on the right side of the brain, as if someone took a knife and made a nearly straight cut from back to front/front to back just to the right of the midline of the brain, but they show virtually no missing brain tissue.

Dr. Baden's admission that the autopsy brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing tissue may even be something of an overstatement. When neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser examined the autopsy brain photos, he could discern virtually no missing tissue.

Crucially, Dr. Chesser also saw (1) no damage whatsoever to the cerebellum except for a “tiny sliver hanging loose” from the bottom of the cerebellum, and (2) no damage to the rear area of the right occipital lobe, yet the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report would have required the bullet to tear through the top part of the cerebellum and through the rear part of the right occipital lobe.

If one assumes a somewhat upward trajectory for the bullet that hit slightly above the EOP, it could have barely missed the cerebellum, but it could not have missed the rear section of the right occipital lobe. The HSCA forensic experts cited this fact as "incontrovertible" evidence against the autopsy report's placement of the rear head entry wound.

Another powerful point of evidence against the autopsy brain photos, and it's a point I haven't mentioned yet, is that if the righthand temporal-parietal explosion seen in the Zapruder film is authentic, there should be a sizable defect, a sizable area of missing brain tissue, in the right side of the temporal and parietal lobes in the brain photos, but no such defect is there.

[John Corbett]

To follow up on these points for those who have not seen any of the JFK autopsy brain photos, we should understand that the photos show a large laceration (cut) on the right side of the brain, as if someone took a knife and made a nearly straight cut from back to front/front to back just to the right of the midline of the brain, but they show virtually no missing brain tissue.

Dr. Baden's admission that the autopsy brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing tissue may even be something of an overstatement. When neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser examined the autopsy brain photos, he could discern virtually no missing tissue.

Crucially, Dr. Chesser also saw (1) no damage whatsoever to the cerebellum except for a “tiny sliver hanging loose” from the bottom of the cerebellum, and (2) no damage to the rear area of the right occipital lobe, yet the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report would have required the bullet to tear through the top part of the cerebellum and through the rear part of the right occipital lobe.

If one assumes a somewhat upward trajectory for the bullet that hit slightly above the EOP, it could have barely missed the cerebellum, but it could not have missed the rear section of the right occipital lobe. The HSCA forensic experts cited this fact as "incontrovertible" evidence against the autopsy report's placement of the rear head entry wound.

Another powerful point of evidence against the autopsy brain photos, and it's a point I haven't mentioned yet, is that if the righthand temporal-parietal explosion seen in the Zapruder film is authentic, there should be a sizable defect, a sizable area of missing brain tissue, in the right side of the temporal and parietal lobes in the brain photos, but no such defect is there.

It's truly amazing how an amateur such as yourself looking at just the few autopsy photos that were leaked to the public is able to see things that were missed by a panel of some of the most highly regarded forensic medical examiners in the country who had access to all the autopsy photos and x-rays and which were of much higher quality than those that you have seen.

[Michael T. Griffith]

It's always amusing to see amateur sleuths try to apply their limited knowledge to a highly technical field. I prefer to go with what actual experts in the field have to say on the subject.

You know very little about the case and repeatedly avoid dealing with contrary facts by either making erroneous appeals to authority or engaging in circular reasoning. It is clear you have done minimal reading on the case and have only read one side.

"Actual experts," huh? Let's see:

Was Dr. Fred Hodges, the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, an actual expert? He advised the Rockefeller Commission that the skull x-rays showed a substantial portion of the right brain to be missing.

Was Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian and one of the ARRB's three forensic consultants, an actual expert? Among other things, he noted that the damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front. Perhaps his exact words should be quoted:

The damage pattern (displacement of scalp and bone) evident when viewing the photos showing the right side of the head and right shoulder (#s 5 6 26 27 and 28) and the photos showing the superior view of the head (#s 7 8 9 10 32 33 34 35 36 and 37) is suggestive of a head wound resulting from a bullet traversing from front-to-rear from the front or right front. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 2)

Is Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist who has examined the autopsy photos and x-rays at the National Archives, an actual expert? He says the x-rays totally contradict the brain photos and that multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays prove they have been altered.

Is Dr. David Mantik, a board-certified radiation oncologist and a former professor of physics whose research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, an actual expert? Dr. Mantik has repeatedly examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and has interviewed the autopsy radiologist and several of the autopsy medical technicians. He has also done multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays and has found hard scientific evidence that they've been altered. He has even been able to duplicate how they were altered. He is the one who discovered the presence of several tiny metal fragments inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays.

Were the four members of the Clark Panel, who were considered among the leading forensic experts in their day, actual experts? They said the autopsy materials indicated the ammo that hit JFK's head was fired from a high-velocity rifle: "These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet travelling at high velocity. . . ." (Clark Panel report, p. 8 ). I trust you know that the FBI's chief firearms expert, Robert Frazier, advised 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)

Was Dr. Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropologist from the Smithsonian who was consulted by the HSCA FPP, an actual expert? His reconstruction of the head damage destroyed the FPP's version of the head shot, which is why the FPP simply ignored it. I'm sure this is news to you. Here's an article on the FPP's stunning dismissal of Dr. Angel's head-damage reconstruction written by John Hunt, one of the most respected and careful researchers in the research community:

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

And on and on and on we could go.

The FPP, composed of some of the most respected medical examiners of their day including WC critic Cyril Wecht, UNANIMOUSLY concurred with the original finding that JFK was struck by two shots fired from above and behind although they did reposition where they thought the entry wound in the back of the head was.

We have a choice here. We can go with the FPP or we can go with MTG? Not a tough call for me.

This nonsense alone proves you have no business discussing the JFK case. You can't even get basic stuff right. FYI, Wecht did not concur with the single-bullet theory, did not concur that only three shots were fired (partly because he correctly insisted that Connally must have been hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JFK in the back), did not concur that the residual defect could not be an additional entry wound, and did not concur that only one bullet hit the head, among other objections that he raised. Good grief, have you not read Wecht's dissent to the FPP's findings? It's in 7 HSCA 199-209.

Wecht specifically argued that the forensic evidence suggested that JFK's head may have been hit by frangible ammo, not just FMJ ammo:

A soft-nose bullet or some other type of relatively frangible ammunition that would have disintegrated upon impact could have struck the right side of JFK's head in the parietal region Inasmuch as there is a large defect of JFK's skull in this area it is not possible to rule out the existence of a separate entrance wound at the site. Since this kind of ammunition would not have penetrated deeply into the brain there would be no evidence of damage to the left cerebral hemisphere nor would there be fragments of such a missile deposited in the left side of the brain Also there would not be a separate exit wound if this kind of ammunition had been used. (7 HSCA 201)

Oh, yes, the FPP did "reposition" the rear head entry wound--yeah, by a staggering 4 inches. They floated the absurd scenario that the three autopsy doctors somehow, someway mistook a wound that was above the lambdoid suture and the lambda for a wound that was a whopping 4 inches lower and only 1 cm above the EOP, an astonishing error that not even a first-year medical student could make.

They had to float this preposterous scenario because they and the HSCA's trajectory expert realized that the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report was impossible to align back to the sixth-floor window--unless JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck.

Despite intense pressure and outright brow-beating by the FPP majority, Finck and Boswell fiercely refused to go along with this fantasy and insisted the rear head wound was very near the EOP as stated in the autopsy report. Humes only went along with this nonsense at the very end of the hearings and only after he was publicly and private badgered and insulted--yet later Humes repudiated his revision and again insisted that the autopsy report's location for the wound was correct. Several autopsy witnesses have confirmed the EOP location.

It's truly amazing how an amateur such as yourself looking at just the few autopsy photos that were leaked to the public is able to see things that were missed by a panel of some of the most highly regarded forensic medical examiners in the country who had access to all the autopsy photos and x-rays and which were of much higher quality than those that you have seen.

This polemic again proves you don't know what you're talking about and are not to be taken seriously. I'm not sure how you have failed to grasp that I've been talking about much, much more than my own analysis of the autopsy photos. I've barely mentioned my own observations about the autopsy photos. Somehow you have missed the fact that I've cited (1) statements regarding the autopsy brain photos made by recognized experts who have examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, (2) Baden's statement to Bugliosi, (3) the accounts of several eyewitnesses who got good, close looks at JFK's brain, (4) statements by witnesses who saw brain tissue and fluid from JFK's brain splattered on numerous surfaces, (5) statements by forensic experts on the behavior of FMJ vs. frangible bullets, and (6) statements by numerous experts on the obvious conflicts between the skull x-rays and the brain photos.

There's a reason that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world doesn't buy your lone-gunman mythology.

[John Corbett]

A key fact to remember about the autopsy materials is that they were originally sealed by executive order for 75 years, so the plotters assumed no one would see the autopsy photos and x-rays until 2038. Similarly, all the unpublished HSCA materials, including the unpublished interviews with the autopsy witnesses and the Parkland witnesses, were originally sealed for 50 years, so no one was supposed to see them until 2029.

This could very well explain why the 6.5 mm object had not yet been added to the AP skull x-ray when the autopsy doctors reviewed the autopsy materials for five hours in 1966. They said nothing about the object in their report on the review. They could not have missed it. It is the most obvious, readily visible "fragment" on the AP x-ray. If they did see it during their review and chose to say nothing about it, this would be a damning, revealing omission. The first time anyone mentioned seeing the 6.5 mm object was when the Clark Panel examined the autopsy materials and issued their report in 1968, and this was also when the rear head entry wound's location was moved upward by an astonishing 4 inches.

But then along came Oliver Stone's movie JFK, which caused such a furor that it led to the passage of the 1992 JFK Records Act and to the creation of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).

But WC apologists seem to live in a world where the 1992 JFK Records Act and all the ARRB disclosures never happened.

Most LNs I know welcome the ARRB disclosures. We knew there would be nothing game changing about them and there wasn't. No smoking gun proving a conspiracy. Nothing to indicate anybody but Oswald took part in the assassination. CTs now need to come up with a new excuse for why they have no credible evidence of a conspiracy.

[John Corbett]

You know very little about the case and repeatedly avoid dealing with contrary facts by either making erroneous appeals to authority or engaging in circular reasoning. It is clear you have done minimal reading on the case and have only read one side.

What you call facts are actually factoids. Made up problems with the evidence presented by the WC and the HSCA FPP. Your objections and those of all CTs are quite comical.

"Actual experts," huh? Let's see:

Was Dr. Fred Hodges, the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, an actual expert? He advised the Rockefeller Commission that the skull x-rays showed a substantial portion of the right brain to be missing.

No one disputes JFK's brains were blown out.

Was Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian and one of the ARRB's three forensic consultants, an actual expert? Among other things, he noted that the damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front. Perhaps his exact words should be quoted:

An anthropologist is not an expert in forensic medicine. The FPP were. They were far more qualifed than Douglas Ubelaker to determine the nature of gunshot wounds. Their unanimous opinion trumps that of an anthropologist.

The damage pattern (displacement of scalp and bone) evident when viewing the photos showing the right side of the head and right shoulder (#s 5 6 26 27 and 28) and the photos showing the superior view of the head (#s 7 8 9 10 32 33 34 35 36 and 37) is suggestive of a head wound resulting from a bullet traversing from front-to-rear from the front or right front. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 2)

Is Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist who has examined the autopsy photos and x-rays at the National Archives, an actual expert? He says the x-rays totally contradict the brain photos and that multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays prove they have been altered.

The FPP unanimously disagreed.

Is Dr. David Mantik, a board-certified radiation oncologist and a former professor of physics whose research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, an actual expert? Dr. Mantik has repeatedly examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and has interviewed the autopsy radiologist and several of the autopsy medical technicians. He has also done multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays and has found hard scientific evidence that they've been altered. He has even been able to duplicate how they were altered. He is the one who discovered the presence of several tiny metal fragments inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays.

Mantik is not an expert in forensic pathology. No qualified forensic pathologist who has reviewed the autopsy materials disputes the findings of the original autopsy team or the FPP that JFK was struck by two bullets fired from the rear.

Were the four members of the Clark Panel, who were considered among the leading forensic experts in their day, actual experts? They said the autopsy materials indicated the ammo that hit JFK's head was fired from a high-velocity rifle: "These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet travelling at high velocity. . . ." (Clark Panel report, p. . I trust you know that the FBI's chief firearms expert, Robert Frazier, advised the WC that the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle:

Frazier testified that the Carcano ammo he tested had an average muzzle velocity of 2165 fps. That was low AS COMPARED TO other ammo such a .270 Winchester or 8mm Mauser. His description of the Carcano velocity was as follows:

"The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, but has very adequate killing power with reference to humans, because it is a military--it is an established military weapon."

The Clark panel did not attempt to calculate the velocity of the bullet that struck JFK's head. It was a team of physicians to whom the term high velocity might mean something very different than to a ballistics expert such as Robert Frazier. Their opinion of a high velocity bullet was based solely on the massive damage the bullet caused to JFK's head.

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)

Was Dr. Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropologist from the Smithsonian who was consulted by the HSCA FPP, an actual expert?

He was an expert in anthropolgy.

His reconstruction of the head damage destroyed the FPP's version of the head shot, which is why the FPP simply ignored it. I'm sure this is news to you. Here's an article on the FPP's stunning dismissal of Dr. Angel's head-damage reconstruction written by John Hunt, one of the most respected and careful researchers in the research community:

It is not surprising that a team of forensic medical examiners would be dismissive of an anthropologist's opinion on the nature of a gunshot wound.

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

And on and on and on we could go.

That won't be necessary. You have embarrassed yourself enough by the "experts" you have cited.

If you needed somebody to work on your car, would you call a plumber?

This nonsense alone proves you have no business discussing the JFK case.

Even back in 1991 when I was a relative newbie to the JFKA discourse, I was running circles around you on the old Prodigy forum. I've learned quite a lot in the 35 years since. You on the other hand seem to have been stuck in neutral the past 35 years.

You can't even get basic stuff right. FYI, Wecht did not concur with the single-bullet theory,

I never said he did. Nice strawman argument

did not concur that only three shots were fired (partly because he correctly insisted that Connally must have been hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JFK in the back),

Keep those strawman arguments coming.

did not concur that the residual defect could not be an additional entry wound, and did not concur that only one bullet hit the head, among other objections that he raised. Good grief, have you not read Wecht's dissent to the FPP's findings? It's in 7 HSCA 199-209.

Wecht's opinion that there were more than 3 shots fired and that JFK's head was struck more than once were not based on his expertise in forensic medicine. He based those opinions largely on his viewing of the Z-film. His medical expertise did not make him an expert in film analysis. I would gladly wager that in his entire career as a medical examiner, he not once was aided by a film of the shooting in rendering his opinion. During the mock TV trial in which Wecht testified, Bugliosi shredded his opinions on cross examination.

Wecht specifically argued that the forensic evidence suggested that JFK's head may have been hit by frangible ammo, not just FMJ ammo:

A soft-nose bullet or some other type of relatively frangible ammunition that would have disintegrated upon impact could have struck the right side of JFK's head in the parietal region Inasmuch as there is a large defect of JFK's skull in this area it is not possible to rule out the existence of a separate entrance wound at the site. Since this kind of ammunition would not have penetrated deeply into the brain there would be no evidence of damage to the left cerebral hemisphere nor would there be fragments of such a missile deposited in the left side of the brain Also there would not be a separate exit wound if this kind of ammunition had been used. (7 HSCA 201)

"Could have". Now there's some compelling evidence. Where is the evidence for where that bullet struck JFK's head? Is this the CT's Magic Bullet Theory?

Oh, yes, the FPP did "reposition" the rear head entry wound--yeah, by a staggering 4 inches.

Which doesn't alter the fact the bullet that struck JFK's head was fired from above and behind him.

They floated the absurd scenario that the three autopsy doctors somehow, someway mistook a wound that was above the lambdoid suture and the lambda for a wound that was a whopping 4 inches lower and only 1 cm above the EOP, an astonishing error that not even a first-year medical student could make.

Nobody disputes the miltary pahologists were a poor choice to do a medico-legal autopsy but we don't get a do-over on that mistake. Even so they did provide enough evidence in the form of photos and x-rays that the FPP was able to concur with their finding that the two shots which struck JFK were fired from behind him.

They had to float this preposterous scenario because they and the HSCA's trajectory expert realized that the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report was impossible to align back to the sixth-floor window--unless JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck.

The Z-film shows JFK was leaning over when the bullet struck his head. He was also leaning to his left.
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg

Despite intense pressure and outright brow-beating by the FPP majority, Finck and Boswell fiercely refused to go along with this fantasy and insisted the rear head wound was very near the EOP as stated in the autopsy report. Humes only went along with this nonsense at the very end of the hearings and only after he publicly and private badgered and insulted--yet later Humes repudiated his revision and again insisted that the autopsy report's location for the wound was correct. Several autopsy witnesses have confirmed the EOP location.

Can you cite any member of the original autopsy team or the FPP that disputes a bullet struck JFK in the back of the head?

This polemic again proves you don't know what you're talking about and are not to be taken seriously.

I know enough not to try to substitute my opinion of the medical evidence for the opinions of qualified experts in the field of forensic medicine. You seem to have no qualms about doing that.

I'm not sure how you have failed to grasp that I've been talking about much, much more than my own analysis of the autopsy photos. I've barely mentioned my own observations about the autopsy photos. Somehow you have missed the fact that I've cited (1) statements regarding the autopsy brain photos made by recognized experts who have examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives,

You have cited anthropologists for their opinions about forensic medicine. Maybe if we were discussing the case of a caveman who clubbed another caveman to death, they would be a good choice.

(2) Baden's statement to Bugliosi, (3) the accounts of several eyewitnesses who got good, close looks at JFK's brain, (4) statements by witnesses who saw brain tissue and fluid from JFK's brain splattered on numerous surfaces,

Such as JBC who said on numerous occasions that he and Nellie were showered with blood and brain material.

(5) statements by forensic experts on the behavior of FMJ vs. frangible bullets,

Which of these experts said there was evidence of a frangible bullet striking JFK's head from any direction?

and (6) statements by numerous experts on the obvious conflicts between the skull x-rays and the brain photos.

None of the "experts" you cited were qualified medical examiners with years of training and experience in the field of forensic pathology.

There's a reason that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world doesn't buy your lone-gunman mythology.

Yes there is. Most of those people are woefully uninformed about the actual evidence in the JFKA. Most of what they think they know about it, they got from Oliver Stone's fictional movie about the event.

[Michael T. Griffith]

[SNIP]
Was Dr. Fred Hodges, the chief of neuro-radiology at the John Hopkins medical school, an actual expert? He advised the Rockefeller Commission that the skull x-rays showed a substantial portion of the right brain to be missing.

Was Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian and one of the ARRB's three forensic consultants, an actual expert? Among other things, he noted that the damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front. Perhaps his exact words should be quoted:

The damage pattern (displacement of scalp and bone) evident when viewing the photos showing the right side of the head and right shoulder (#s 5 6 26 27 and 28) and the photos showing the superior view of the head (#s 7 8 9 10 32 33 34 35 36 and 37) is suggestive of a head wound resulting from a bullet traversing from front-to-rear from the front or right front. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 2)

Is Dr. Michael Chesser, a board-certified neurologist who has examined the autopsy photos and x-rays at the National Archives, an actual expert? He says the x-rays totally contradict the brain photos and that multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays prove they have been altered.

Is Dr. David Mantik, a board-certified radiation oncologist and a former professor of physics whose research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, an actual expert? Dr. Mantik has repeatedly examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives, and has interviewed the autopsy radiologist and several of the autopsy medical technicians. He has also done multiple optical-density measurements of the skull x-rays and has found hard scientific evidence that they've been altered. He has even been able to duplicate how they were altered. He is the one who discovered the presence of several tiny metal fragments inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays.

Were the four members of the Clark Panel, who were considered among the leading forensic experts in their day, actual experts? They said the autopsy materials indicated the ammo that hit JFK's head was fired from a high-velocity rifle: "These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet travelling at high velocity. . . ." (Clark Panel report, p. 8 ). I trust you know that the FBI's chief firearms expert, Robert Frazier, advised 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)

Was Dr. Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropologist from the Smithsonian who was consulted by the HSCA FPP, an actual expert? His reconstruction of the head damage destroyed the FPP's version of the head shot, which is why the FPP simply ignored it. I'm sure this is news to you. Here's an article on the FPP's stunning dismissal of Dr. Angel's head-damage reconstruction written by John Hunt, one of the most respected and careful researchers in the research community:

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

[SNIP]

Oh, yes, the FPP did "reposition" the rear head entry wound--yeah, by a staggering 4 inches. They floated the absurd scenario that the three autopsy doctors somehow, someway mistook a wound that was above the lambdoid suture and the lambda for a wound that was a whopping 4 inches lower and only 1 cm above the EOP, an astonishing error that not even a first-year medical student could make.

They had to float this preposterous scenario because they and the HSCA's trajectory expert realized that the rear head entry wound described in the autopsy report was impossible to align back to the sixth-floor window--unless JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck.

Despite intense pressure and outright brow-beating by the FPP majority, Finck and Boswell fiercely refused to go along with this fantasy and insisted the rear head wound was very near the EOP as stated in the autopsy report. Humes only went along with this nonsense at the very end of the hearings and only after he was publicly and private badgered and insulted--yet later Humes repudiated his revision and again insisted that the autopsy report's location for the wound was correct. Several autopsy witnesses have confirmed the EOP location.

There's a reason that 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world doesn't buy your lone-gunman mythology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ARRB forensic experts noted the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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