Michael Griffith
-
Posts
1,736 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Griffith
-
-
1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:
I thought there was some eyewitness account which said that at the autopsy the autopsy doctors were discussing the possibility that a fragment from the head shot exited the throat. Can't remember who said that. Maybe it was Richard Lipsey.
So did Humes, Boswell and Finck all deny later on that they had any idea during the autopsy that the throat wound was anything other than a tracheotomy?
Oh, Humes was certainly willing to posit a head-shot fragment exiting the throat, but not a bullet, at least for a time. During the autopsy, he pretended he had no idea that a bullet had entered or exited the throat, but, for a time, he was willing to describe the throat wound as an exit point for a head-shot fragment. We know that one of the first two drafts of the autopsy report, in fact, said that a fragment from the head shot exited the throat.
Later, Humes claimed that he only found out about the throat wound when he spoke with Perry the day after the autopsy. Boswell contradicted himself on aspects of this story once or twice but pretty much stuck to it. In his HSCA interview, Finck chose his words carefully about when he knew of the throat wound. He said he "probably" did not know about it until after the autopsy. When he was then asked where he thought the back-wound bullet had gone by the end of the autopsy, if he didn't know about the throat wound during the autopsy, he said, "It is hard to say now, but I don't know."
-
15 hours ago, Gerry Down said:
I've never heard of someone being able to calculate the missing weight of a brain from just a photo alone.
So you can't even admit that the brain photos do not even remotely show one fourth of the brain missing? Wow. Again, you are determined to see the emperor's new clothes, no matter what.
You don't have to be a neurologist to see that the brain in those photos is virtually intact, that it has virtually no tissue missing, just as Baden observed.
And bear in mind Baden was trying to do this from just the overhead view of the brain where the damage was. No sideview.
So you want us to believe that on the right exterior of the cerebrum, i.e., the one part that we can't see in the top-view photo, there is a huge amount of missing brain, one fourth of the brain gone! I mean, this is just silly. If that much brain were missing on the right side of the cerebrum, the cerebrum would be much smaller than it is in the brain photos.
Moreover, Baden said he viewed all the brain photos, not just the top-view one. Plus, Humes's report on the supplemental brain exam includes a description of the basilar view of the brain (underneath view of the brain), and it likewise says nothing about any missing brain tissue.
By the way, the HSCA FPP acknowledged that the brain photos show the cerebellum "virtually intact." So all those doctors, including two neurosurgeons, who reported seeing damaged and missing cerebellar tissue must have blundered horrendously, even though the cerebellar tissue is found only in the back of the brain and has a different color than any other part of the brain.
And if one fourth of the brain was gone, how do you get a brain that weighs 1500 grams, especially when the average male brain weighs 150 grams less than that? Formalin might add 100 grams of weight, but sometimes it reduces the weight. And Baden's edema-fluid theory is a joke. As we would expect, a large amount of brain fluid was blown from JFK's head, along with blood and brain matter.
Allow me to repeat the fact that Dr. Mantik has verified via OD measurements that over half of the right side of the brain is missing in the skull x-rays, and that some brain tissue is also missing on the left side.
-
6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
Fragments from a pristine bullet? I'm confused.
Nurse Bell was adamant that more fragments were removed just from Connally's wrist than could have come from CE 399.
In the WC's ballistics tests, bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with more damage than CE 399.
-
I think we should keep in mind that most CIA departments and top officials had no idea that rogue CIA officers and operatives were involved in the assassination and cover-up. I doubt, for example, that CIA director John McCone or any of his staff knew that the Zapruder film was secretly sent to a CIA photo lab in New York and to NPIC (as we now know it was).
-
20 hours ago, Gerry Down said:
So there was a bit of a soap opera where Humes was trying to get Perry to change his description of the throat wound as being an entrance wound. Humes seems to have first thought a bullet fragment from the head shot exited the throat but then decided a better explanation was the bullet that entered the back had exited the throat.
Did Humes know during the autopsy that there had been a throat wound prior to the tracheotomy? Dr. Livingstone says he phoned Humes prior to the autopsy and told him about this wound. If that's true then apparently while the autopsy was going on the autopsy doctors thought a bullet fragment had exited the throat.
This would explain why there were so many different drafts of the autopsy report.
Not sure why Humes then tried to pretend his midnight phonecall with Dr. Perry was such a revelation to him about there being a throat wound. Dr Livingstone had told him that before the autopsy had even begun.
The reason for the three drafts of the autopsy report was that Humes knew the back wound had no exit point and was unwilling (or unable) to admit that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Once he knew Oswald was dead and that there would be no trial, he knew he could away with making the false claim that the throat wound was the back wound's exit point. He burned his original autopsy notes partly to conceal the fact that the back wound had no exit point.
During the autopsy, Humes was careful to pretend that he didn't know about the throat wound. He had already been warned that under no circumstances could he admit that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Hours earlier, Dr. Perry had stated in a televised news conference in Dallas that there was a throat wound and that it was an entry wound, and numerous journalists were at that news conference. So the plotters knew they had a serious problem and had to make the throat entry wound go away.
That's why Humes and others called Perry during the autopsy and angrily badgered and threatened him. Perry said he was threatened with losing his medical license if he repeated his conclusion that the throat wound was an entry wound. That's also why a Secret Service agent badgered and pressured Perry in the weeks leading up to his WC testimony.
Getting back to the autopsy, once Humes knew that the back wound had no exit point, he knew it was imperative that he not reveal the existence of the throat wound, much less that it was an entry wound. In order to sell his throat-exit-wound lie, he had to invent the myth that he didn't know about the throat wound until he spoke with Perry the day after the autopsy.
There was no serious challenge to Humes's lies about the back wound and the throat wound until 1966, when Harold Weisberg discovered the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy.
-
I hope Smith's book doesn't throw out the baby with the bath water and cut off our nose to spite our face. There's a reason that WC apologists universally attack the HSCA, and there's a reason that the HSCA's findings are usually ignored or summarily dismissed in history books. For all of its many faults, all things considered, the HSCA was a huge step forward in the JFK case. It was certainly a substantial improvement over the WC.
I just hope Smith discusses all the good things that the HSCA did, in addition to the many omissions, distortions, and missed opportunities.
-
2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
Interesting comments by Daniel Ellsberg regards Kennedy's policy on Viet Nam versus Eisenhower, LBJ and Nixon's.
Ellsberg lumps JFK's Viet Nam policy ideology in with the other 3 presidents as imperialistic.
See this JFK mention not long after the Amy Goodman "Democracy Now" interview of Ellsberg begins.
Jim Di...any comments?
Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who recently announced that he has been diagnosed ...Ellsberg turned into a genuine loon, a mouthpiece for North Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and China. In the pro-communist documentary Hearts and Minds, Ellsberg uttered this piece of Communist propaganda:
A war in which one side is entirely equipped and financed by foreigners is not a civil war. The only foreigners in that country were the foreigners we financed in the first part of the war and the foreigners we were in the second half of the war. (1:22:50-1:22:57)
If he had any remaining connection with reality, Ellsberg had to know better than this nonsense. By 1954, Communist China had tens of thousands of troops in northern Vietnam. Chinese generals essentially ran the Vietminh's military operations (including the assault on Dien Bien Phu). By 1965, China had over 100,000 support troops in North Vietnam. The Soviets stationed over 1,000 AAA technical advisers in North Vietnam to help operate the North Vietnamese SAM batteries and had special forces units there as well.
The Soviets and the Chinese provided North Vietnam with massive amounts of weapons and supplies (including tanks, SAM batteries, artillery, trucks, mortars, grenades, land mines, etc.). The Soviets and the Chinese literally kept North Vietnam from economic collapse with hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid. The North Vietnamese Communists would have been a small footnote in history had it not been for the massive support they received from the Soviets and the Chinese.
-
4 hours ago, Gerry Down said:
I believe 99% of the witnesses, but we need to make sure that the witnesses are interpreting correctly what they see.
Right, so all those witnesses, in three different locations, who saw a large right-rear head wound couldn't tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 2-3 inches behind the right ear, not even the nurse who packed the wound with gauze, and not even the mortician who reassembled the skull after the autopsy. And neurosurgeons and several other doctors couldn't distinguish between cerebellar tissue and surrounding tissue, even though cerebellar tissue is located only at the back of the brain and has a different color than other brain tissue. So much mind-boggling "misinterpretation."
I have no doubt the Parkland doctors thought the throat wound was an entrance wound but I think they misinterpreted what was actually an exit wound.
Since when are entrance wounds 3-5 mm in diameter, neat, and punched-in? Why was the damage behind the throat wound larger than the wound itself, which is normally a sure indication that a projectile entered the wound? The idea that the collar would have shored up the neck and enabled the creation of a small, neat wound, (1) ignores the fact that the wound was also punched inward, and (2) displays an ignorance of bullets and wound ballistics. Even a low-velocity bullet would have been long gone before the neck could have been shored up by the collar.
This is not to mention that the shirt slits were not made by a bullet, and that the tie knot had no hole through it and no nick on either edge.
I don't know why Baden is saying only 2 ounces was missing.
Because that's exactly what the autopsy brain photos show, as Baden himself noted. As both sides have long agreed--well, until your reply, anyway--the brain photos show a virtually intact brain, a brain with virtually no tissue missing.
As Baden also noted, the autopsy report says nothing about any amount of missing brain. It says the right cerebral sector was "markedly disrupted," but it says nothing, not one word, about any missing brain tissue, cerebral or otherwise.
And, just to be clear, Baden said that only "an ounce or two" of brain matter was missing, so he said that no more than two ounces were missing.
A good quarter of the brain was missing.
Uh, well, if one-fourth of the brain was missing, then obviously the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent, since they show virtually no missing brain tissue.
But, as Rod Serling famously said, "Next stop, the Twilight Zone!" So let me just guess: You are going to say that when you look at the brain photos, you see one fourth of the brain missing! Yes?
I mean, if you can see a bunch in the Croft photo that would account for the rear clothing holes being 5-plus inches below the collar (never mind that JFK's coat is nearly flat in Betzner 3 and Willis 5), and if you can imagine how the tailor-made shirt could have magically bunched in virtually perfect correspondence with the coat, and if you can look at JFK's front shirt slits and see an exit hole for a non-yawing bullet (never mind that no copper traces were found around the slits, whereas such traces were found around the rear holes)--if you can see these things, then I won't be surprised if you announce that you see 25% of the brain missing in the brain photos.
-
2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:
The name is not important.
The card is not important.
It's the signature that's the problem.
What was it about the signature that would cause Oswald to deny that it was his?
Steve Thomas
One possible explanation is that he knew he did not sign the card. It would have been telling to see the signature on the other Hidell ID card, the one that was found in the Oswald wallet that was found at the Tippit scene, but the DPD made that evidence disappear.
-
17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
More or less where Angel put it. Baden realized that Angel's interpretation was at odds with his own interpretation of the location of the large triangular fragment. So he pretended the Harper fragment actually sprang from the right temple area, which no one but no one takes seriously.
The only three doctors who actually handled the Harper Fragment all said it was occipital bone. One of those doctors was Dr. A. B. Cairns, who was then the chief pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas. The two other doctors, Harper and Noteboom, were also pathologists. When interviewed about the fragment in 1992, Dr. Noteboom confirmed that the fragment was occipital bone and said he recalled a trace of metal on one edge of the fragment.
I think Dr. Mantik establishes that the Harper Fragment was occipital bone in his new book JFK Assassination Paradoxes. Anyone who claims the Harper Fragment was anything other than occipital bone needs to explain the evidence that Mantik presents.
-
4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
On doing further research, I have found that JFK's brain matter was actually splattered on 15 surfaces:
-- The back seat of the limo.
-- The right-rear passenger door of the limo.
-- The trunk/rear hood of the limo.
-- The front seat of the limo (per Roy Kellerman, 2 H 78).
-- Roy Kellerman's coat ("it was all over my coat").
-- The back of William Greer's coat (per Greer himself, and per Kellerman).
-- Governor Connally's clothes.
-- Nellie Connally's clothes (4 H 147).
-- Officer Martin's clothes.
-- Officer Hargis's clothes.
-- Officer Martin's motorcycle.
-- Officer Hargis's motorcycle.
-- Sam Kinney's clothes (riding in the follow-up car).
-- The windshield of the follow-up car.
-- Jackie's dress (she said JFK's brains were "all over me").WC apologists, showing a total and discrediting lack of objectivity, ask us to believe that all this brain matter amounted to no more than two ounces. Why do they make such a ludicrous claim? Because the alleged autopsy brain photos show a virtually complete brain, and because Dr. Michael Baden reported that the photos show that only "an ounce or two" of brain matter was missing.
If WC apologists were to admit the obvious fact that far more brain matter was blown out and splattered than is missing from the brain in the autopsy brain photos, they would have to admit that the brain photos are fraudulent. But they will never admit this, which is one reason it is a waste of time dealing with them.
On a side note, I should add that Jackie Kennedy scooped up as much brain tissue as she could gather off the rear hood of the limo, brought it into the Parkland ER, and handed it to one of the medical staff in the room (LINK; LINK).
And let's remember, as I noted earlier, that Dr. Humes himself told JAMA in 1992 that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (LINK, p. 2798). Of course, no such damage to the cerebrum is seen in the alleged autopsy brain photos--the right cerebrum seen in those photos has virtually no substance missing, if any.
Baden had no choice but to argue that only "an ounce or two" of brain was missing, given the brain we see in the brain photos.
When someone tells you that all the splattered brain matter, splattered on 15 surfaces, amounted to no more than two ounces, you know you are dealing with a diehard WC apologist who will never admit anything, no matter how compelling the evidence.
WC apologists reject the numerous accounts of missing and badly damaged cerebellum, of a large amount of missing brain, and of a large right-rear head wound, even though those accounts come from federal agents, nurses, doctors, morticians, medical technicians, and others, in three different locations (actually four different locations), and even though they were given at different times and independently of each other.
But, WC apologists will latch onto James Jenkins' statement that the brain he saw is consistent with the brain in the autopsy brain photos, although they'll turn around and reject Jenkins' other statements about the brain (i.e., that it looked like it had been in formalin, that its damage did not seem to match the skull damage, and that it looked too small for the cranial cavity).
When Jenkins was interviewed by the HSCA in the late 1970s, he admitted that he had forgotten some things about the autopsy and that he wished he had been interviewed years earlier when the events were fresher in his mind. As you read his HSCA interview, you see him repeatedly say he doesn't remember this or is unsure about that, etc., etc. Some people have very good memories. Some of the witnesses interviewed by the ARRB in the late 1990s said they still clearly recalled what they had seen and heard. But, 20 years earlier, Jenkins advised the HSCA that he didn't remember everything and was unsure about some things.
-
26 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:
Gerry,
I misinterpreted your take.
I was under the impresssion that you said that Jenkins was holding JFK's brain & comparing it to a illustration.
Jenkins was holding a substitute brain.
Oh, so now Gerry Down is willing to believe an eyewitness account, never mind that it conflicts with dozens of other accounts of the brain's appearance. He rejects all those other accounts, and latches onto Jenkins' recollection.
Also, notice in the video that Jenkins says the brain looked like it had been in formalin, yet he never saw the brain after the autopsy. Notice he also says that the damage to the brain did not seem to match the damage to the skull, and that the brain seemed too small for the cranial cavity.
Given the amount of brain matter that was splattered backward and forward, there is no way that JFK's brain could have looked anything like the brain in the autopsy brain photos. There is no way that the brain matter that was splattered onto 15 surfaces amounted to only two ounces.
And I repeat the point that Dr. Mantik confirmed via OD measurements that over half of the right side of the brain is missing in the skull x-rays, and that some brain matter is also missing on the left side.
-
Why oh why oh why would Oswald, who was highly intelligent, have bought a rifle through the mail and left a paper trail could trace the rifle back to him, when he could have easily and much more quickly bought a rifle at any number of gun stores in the area and without needing to sign any paperwork for it, etc.?
-
13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
If you could find me a single article in which he separates himself from Fetzer and says Fetzer was wrong about the moon landings, Z-film alteration, 9/11, etc, I would be surprised.
If you go back through this forum you will find a pattern... Fetzer would claim Mantik was the top researcher blah blah blah and then claim Mantik said x. I would then correct him and say "No, that's not what Mantik says." He would then check with Mantik and Mantik would tell him I was right. He would then make another claim about Mantik that just wasn't true.
And this wasn't entirely Fetzer's fault. Mantik had allowed a lot of people to think things, that he would later claim was untrue. The classic example is the white spot apparent on the x-rays. Numerous writers cited Mantik and claimed this spot covered up a hole on the back of the head from where the Harper fragment had been dislodged. The problem was that this white spot did not reach the back of the head where Mantik claimed the Harper fragment had once resided, and that there was no missing skull in Mantik's analysis underlying the white spot. So Mantik changed his conclusion to be that the white spot was inserted to conceal missing brain, not skull. But this made no sense to some of his biggest supporters. So they kept claiming it concealed the former location of the Harper fragment. This is documented ad nauseam on my website.
Now you're shifting the goal posts. Plenty of serious, credible researchers believe that the Z film was altered. It's unreasonable, not to mention a bit shady, to lump that view in with denying the Moon landings and with 9/11 Truther stuff.
Let's say this: How about if you find me a single article where Mantik has said the Moon landings were faked or where he has endorsed the 9/11 Truther claims? We both know that no such article exists. It is vacuous logic to say, "If he hasn't publicly rejected those views, he must agree with them."
As for your renewed repetition of Mantik's revisions regarding the Harper fragment and the white spot, his willingness to correct his views is a testament to his honesty and objectivity.
I will just again note that you are in a very tiny minority of WC critics who reject most or all of Mantik's historic research. I think anyone who reads your critique of his research and then reads his response to your critique will see that his research on the autopsy x-rays and photos is far superior to yours. The list of experts who have endorsed his OD-based analysis of the skull x-rays and/or his books includes Dr. Arthur Haas (former chief of medical physics at Kodak), Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Greg Henkelmann (another radiation oncologist), and Dr. Cyril Wecht.
By the way, Dr. Henkelmann says the following in his endorsement of Dr. Mantik’s book JFK’s Head Wounds:
Dr. Mantik’s optical density analysis is the single most important piece of scientific evidence in the JFK assassination. To reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology.
And, just FYI, here are some of Dr. Mantik’s peer-reviewed, published medical research articles:
“Proton Radiation for Treatment of Cancer of the Oropharynx: Early Experience at Loma Linda University Medical Center using a Concomitant Boost Technique,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. (Proton radiation for treatment of cancer of the oropharynx: Early experience at Loma Linda University Medical Center using a concomitant boost technique | Request PDF (researchgate.net))
“Hyperthermia and Radiation In Vivo: Effect of 2-Deoxy-D-Glucose.” (Hyperthermia and radiation in vivo: Effect of 2-deoxy-D-glucose | Request PDF (researchgate.net))
“Mouse Neoplasia and Immunity: Effects of Radiation, Hyperthermia, 2-Deoxy-D-Glucose, and Corynebacterium Parvum.” (Mouse Neoplasia and Immunity: Effects of Radiation, Hyperthermia, 2-deoxy-D-glucose, and Corynebacterium parvum | Request PDF (researchgate.net))
-
I'm glad to see that FoxNews is giving RFK Jr. exposure via interviews and news segments. It is sad that most of the MSM is either ignoring him or bashing him and praising the incumbent.
-
Here's the basic point: We now know, due in great part to ARRB materials, that the autopsy report's description of a path from the back wound to the throat wound is nothing but Humes's post-autopsy speculation and fabrication, that by the end of the autopsy the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point. We also now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat.
We further now know that on the night of the autopsy, one or more of the autopsy doctors called Dr. Perry and angrily pressured him to change his description of the throat wound. We know this from two independent sources: Nurse Audrey Bell and journalist Martin Steadman. Nurse Bell spoke with Perry the day after the assassination. Steadman spoke with Perry about a week after the assassination. Perry told both of them that on the night of the autopsy, he received angry calls from Bethesda badgering and threatening him to stop calling the throat wound an entrance wound. Neither Bell nor Steadman was aware of the other's account. (Note, too, that Dr. Perry himself stated in 1964 and again in 1998 that he spoke with Humes on Friday, 11/22.)
The throat wound was a typical entry wound. It was small (3-5 mm), neat, and punched-in. The 11/22/1963 Parkland Hospital reports describe the wound as a "puncture" wound. Dr. Perry repeatedly stated during a televised news conference on 11/22 that the throat wound was an entry wound. Dr. Carrico noted to the HSCA that the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound, clearly indicating the bullet traveled from front to back. Dr. Nathan Jacobs made the same point in 1967.
-
On doing further research, I have found that JFK's brain matter was actually splattered on 15 surfaces:
-- The back seat of the limo.
-- The right-rear passenger door of the limo.
-- The trunk/rear hood of the limo.
-- The front seat of the limo (per Roy Kellerman, 2 H 78).
-- Roy Kellerman's coat ("it was all over my coat").
-- The back of William Greer's coat (per Greer himself, and per Kellerman).
-- Governor Connally's clothes.
-- Nellie Connally's clothes (4 H 147).
-- Officer Martin's clothes.
-- Officer Hargis's clothes.
-- Officer Martin's motorcycle.
-- Officer Hargis's motorcycle.
-- Sam Kinney's clothes (riding in the follow-up car).
-- The windshield of the follow-up car.
-- Jackie's dress (she said JFK's brains were "all over me").WC apologists, showing a total and discrediting lack of objectivity, ask us to believe that all this brain matter amounted to no more than two ounces. Why do they make such a ludicrous claim? Because the alleged autopsy brain photos show a virtually complete brain, and because Dr. Michael Baden reported that the photos show that only "an ounce or two" of brain matter was missing.
If WC apologists were to admit the obvious fact that far more brain matter was blown out and splattered than is missing from the brain in the autopsy brain photos, they would have to admit that the brain photos are fraudulent. But they will never admit this, which is one reason it is a waste of time dealing with them.
On a side note, I should add that Jackie Kennedy scooped up as much brain tissue as she could gather off the rear hood of the limo, brought it into the Parkland ER, and handed it to one of the medical staff in the room (LINK; LINK).
-
1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:
I don't see what all the fuss is about.
At the autopsy the autopsy doctors couldn't find an exit point for the back wound. LNers posit this is because the back muscles of JFK had swelled and were not positioned at the autopsy in such a way as they were at Z224 when JFKs right arm was in a raised position. Thereofore the autopsy doctors failed to mimick and trace the bullet path at the autopsy.
Humes completed the autopsy and handed the body over to the morticians. Everyone present, including Greer and the FBI agents thought no exit point had been found for the bullet.
Then Humes phones Dr. Perry and Perry reveals the throat wound was a gunshot wound and only then Humes realizes the back wound had exited out the throat. But by then the body had been handed over to the morticians.
Humes never wrote in the autopsy report that it was only after handing the body over to the morticians that he realized he had made a mistake at the autopsy. And naturally did not want to include that mistake in the autopsy report and so doesn't include it.
You know this stuff is bogus and that it's already been answered, but you just keep repeating it. Again, for the fourth or fifth time, Boswell admitted to the ARRB that they were able to probe the back wound after they removed the chest organs. Boswell said that the probing was difficult before then because of the muscles, but that they were able to "get at it" once they removed the chest organs.
And you know, because I have personally documented this in replies to you, that Dr. Karnei noted that the pathologists positioned the body "every which way" while doing the probing. He also noted that the men around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. That's where the wound ended. But you will never admit this but will float farcical theories rather than accept this powerful evidence.
You also know that after taking over the probing from Humes and spending a long time probing the wound himself, Dr. Finck, who was a board-certified forensic pathologist, proclaimed "this wound has no exit." That's when Sibert called Dallas to see if they had found a bullet.
You just cast aside the numerous eyewitness accounts that document that the pathologists absolutely, positively established that the back wound had no exit point at the autopsy. You cite the third draft of the autopsy report and dismiss all these independent, mutually corroborating accounts.
You're still repeating the myth that Humes, Boswell, and Finck didn't know about the throat wound until after the autopsy report??? Seriously? Who are you people? Why do you get on public boards and repeat myths that have been debunked for years?
When are you folks going to deal with Doug Horne's documentation that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat? When? You'll find it in chapter 11 of Inside the ARRB, Volume 3. Horne spends 26 pages documenting this.
-
1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:
Alot of these eyewitness accounts are very subjective. How much is "alot" of brain tissue? The shot at Z313 pulverized JFKs brain which would have allowed a small amount of brain to cover a large amount of the interior of the limousine in the form of greyish matter.
Connallys account it noteworthy. He said a piece of JFKs brain, the size of a thumbnail, landed on his knee. The way he says this it sounds like this piece of brain matter was so noteworthy that this may have been the largest piece of brain matter that he saw inside the limousine though i know he does not explicitly say so.
Hargis was not a doctor and so was in no position to identify what type of matter was blown back onto him by the wind.
Floyd Riebes account is interesting, but only because he is the only witness who said there was less than half a brain there. No one else said this. Which makes one wonder if Riebe had a tendency to exaggerate. Mortician Robinson for example directly contradicts Riebe by saying only an amount of brain matter the size of a closed fist was missing.
You're simply determined to see the emperor's new clothes. If you could be objective, you would readily admit that the accounts of substantial missing brain certainly rule out the idea that no more than two ounces of brain were missing. The witnesses saw the brain from different angles and in different circumstances, so naturally there is some variance in their descriptions of the amount of missing brain, but they all make it clear that more than two ounces were missing.
No, Riebe was not the only witness who said that more than half the brain was gone. Three other witnesses said that more than half was gone (Knudsen, O'Neill, O'Connor), and one other implied it (Hill). And, a clump of missing brain the size of a closed fist would be far, far more brain matter than is missing in the brain photos. But never mind that, right?
You are misrepresenting Connally's testimony about the amount of brain matter he saw. He made it clear that he saw more brain matter than just the clump of brain tissue on his knee. He said he saw brain matter on his clothes and on the interior of the car. Let's read his statement together:
So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear. Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail. (4 H 133)
"Hargis was not a doctor. . . ." Oh, boy. This comment shows you have no interest in fact or truth on this issue, but just in peddling the lone-gunman myth. Hargis said he saw blood, brain matter, and some kind of clear fluid, which he logically viewed as brain fluid. So, pray tell, other than the blood and the clear fluid he described, what other substance splattered onto Hargis's clothes and windshield, if not brain tissue?
And, pray tell, what was the substance that splattered on the follow-up car's windshield, on Kinney's clothes (follow-up car occupant), on Jackie's dress, and on Officer's Martin's windshield? The people who saw it specified that the substance was separate from the blood. We all know it was brain matter, but you can't admit this without admitting that the brain photos are bogus.
I concluded that you weren't interested in fact and candor on the JFK case when you floated the ludicrous and long-debunked bunched-clothing argument, even though it's refuted by Betzner 3 and Willis 5, and when you insisted that the autopsy doctors left JFK's right arm lying on the table during the whole time they were positioning the body "every which way" to probe the back wound, even after they removed the chest organs and could see the end of the probe, and even though Boswell admitted to the ARRB that they had no trouble probing the wound after they removed the chest organs.
-
5 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:
The Neutron Activation Analysis of the limo bullets was done for the HSCA in the seventies right? This particular issue interests me because I studied metallurgy in college. The Randich/Grant study made sense to me when I read it.
Yet, years after the Randich-Grant study, you still have WC apologists repeating the myth that NAA proved that the JFK bullet fragments came from MC ammo.
-
1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:
Sure thing.
From the Pathological Examination Report:
"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained, this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."
Is this some kind of silly joke? After all the evidence that has been discussed, how can you seriously quote the third version of the autopsy report??? Seriously? Did you still not read all the accounts of the probing and of the pathologists' positive, certain determination that the back wound had no exit point? Have you still not read the documentation that shows that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat?
The problem is that you are determined to see the emperor's new clothes, no matter much how evidence proves he's naked. You brush aside numerous independent and mutually corroborating accounts and cite the third version of the autopsy report. Unbelievable. You are not to be taken seriously on this issue.
-
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
You're kidding, right? Your blog article does not even address most of the evidence of a substantial amount of missing brain. It does not even mention all the brain matter that was splattered in and on the limo, on Jackie's dress, on the follow-up car, and on two of the patrolmen. Did you not read the previous replies in this thread before citing your blog article?
Let me repeat some of the evidence that has been discussed:
Floyd Riebe, who assisted John Stringer with taking photos at the autopsy, said that less than half the brain was present:
Q: Did you see the brain removed from President Kennedy?
A: What little bit there was left, yes.
Q: Were any photographs taken of the brain?
A: I think I did some when they were putting it in that stainless steel pail.
Q: When you say that there was not much left, what do you mean by that?
A: Well, it was less than half of a brain there. (Deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe, ARRB, 5/7/1997, pp. 43-44)From Clint Hill's 11/22/1963 report, in which he describes what he saw at very close range as he rode on top of the back seat on the way to Parkland--part of the brain was gone and there was a wound in the right-rear part of the head:
As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. (11/22/1963 report, p. 3)
From Clint Hill's WC testimony--there were pieces of brain matter "all over" the rear part of the car, and he still saw the right-rear head wound:
Mr. SPECTER: What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?
Mr. HILL: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. (2 H 141)
Mortician Tom Robinson, who witnessed the autopsy and who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy, said that the amount of brain missing in the back of the head was about the size of a closed fist:
Robinson said that he saw the brain removed from President Kennedy's body and that a large percentage of it was gone "in the back," from the "medulla," and that the portion of the brain that was missing was about the size of a closed fist. He described the condition of the brain in this area as the consistency of "soup." (Meeting Report, ARRB, 6/21/1996, p. 2)
Gloria Knudsen, wife of Robert Knudsen, who processed some of the autopsy photos, said her husband told her that JFK's brains were largely missing:
Mrs. Gloria Knudsen said that her husband Robert had told her that . . . the President's brains were largely missing (blown out). (Meeting Report, ARRB, 5/10/1996, p. 2)
Patrolman Bobby Hargis, who was riding closely behind and to the left of the limousine, said that when the explosive head shot occurred, he was "splattered with blood and brain":
Mr. HARGIS. Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of a bloody water. (6 H 294)
Patrolman B. J. Martin, who was riding beside Hargis, said blood and "other matter" were splattered on his uniform, windshield, and motor:
Mr. BALL. What about your uniform?Mr.
Mr. MARTIN. There was blood and matter on my left shoulder of my uniform.
Mr. BALL. You pointed to a place in front of your shoulder, about the clavicle region?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Is that about where it was?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. On the front of your uniform and not on the side?
Mr. MARTIN. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. That would be left, was it?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes ; on the left side.
Mr. BALL. And just below the level of the shoulder?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And what spots were there?
Mr. MARTIN. They were blood spots and other matter.
Mr. BALL. And what did you notice on your windshield?
Mr. MARTIN. There was blood and other matter on my windshield and also on the motor. (6 H 292)Jack McNairy, who saw the limousine up-close at Parkland Hospital, said in a video-taped interview that there was "gray matter" splattered over a large part of the back seat:
As I looked around, I saw that there was gray matter splattered here [pointing to the inside of the rear passenger door to the right JFK's seat] and along the back of the front seat. (LINK)
Patrolman H. B. McClain, who helped Jackie get out of the limousine at Parkland Hospital, said in a video-taped interview that there was "matter" splattered all over the inside of the right-hand side of the car:
I could see what looked like a piece of skull, some hair, and matter splattered all over inside the car. It was all on the right-hand side of the car, except the part of the skull--it was laying right in the middle. (LINK)
When interview by CBS News in 2013, Clint Hill repeated his account of seeing a large amount of missing brain:
Scott Pelley: What did you see?
Clint Hill: Brain matter, blood, bone fragments all come out of the wound.… Then Mrs. Kennedy came up on the trunk. She was trying to grab some of that material and pull it back with her.… I got a hold of her and I put her in the backseat. … And when I did that, his body fell to its left into her lap. His face--is head was in her lap. The right side of his face was up. I could see his eyes were fixed. I could see an area through the skull that there was no brain matter in that area at all. So I assumed it was a fatal wound. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agent-who-jumped-on-jfks-limo-recounts-fateful-moments/)
Secret Service agent Sam Kinney, who rode in the follow-up car, stated in a recorded interview with Vincent Palamara that brain matter splattered "all over" his windshield and arm:
The back of that Lincoln would be directly in front of me. Well, I had brain matter all over my windshield and arm. That's how close we were. (LINK, 19:33-19:47)
In 2003, Dr. Robeert Grossman, one of the Parkland doctors, wrote that Jackie's dress was splattered with brain tissue and blood:
Her face was very white and she appeared to have been crying. She was wearing a light-colored dress. The lap of her dress was covered with blood and brain tissue. (https://www.deseret.com/2003/11/22/19797270/neurosurgeon-recalls-examining-the-dying-jfk)
Clearly, the autopsy brain photos do not show JFK's brain. Similarly, the claim that JFK's post-assassination brain weighed 1,500 grams is obviously bogus. Even if we assume the brain was weighed after it had been fixed in formalin, the weight of 1,500 grams is ludicrous. Fixing a brain in formalin may add about 100 grams of weight, but it may also reduce the weight by that amount. The average male human brain weighs about 1,350 grams.
And Baden's claim that edema fluids increased the weight of the brain borders on silliness, given the fact that we know that brain fluid was also blasted out of the skull and splattered on several surfaces. Hargis specified that brain tissue and brain fluid splattered on his windshield.
Shall we mention that the Zapruder film shows a blob of brain matter and blood blowing upward and toward the camera? That blob alone looks like much more than just two ounces. To give you some idea of little two ounces are, consider that two ounces equal four tablespoons of fluid. The blob in the Z film alone is clearly more than that.
-
51 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:
OK, then, in your estimation could someone have probed JFK and removed a missile, pre-autopsy?
Doug Horne deals with this issue in some depth. He makes a credible case that, yes, there was pre-autopsy surgery (sometimes aka post-mortem surgery), and that Humes and Boswell were the ones who did the illicit surgery. He covers this in his Inside the ARRB book. He discusses it in this video:
The JFK Medical Coverup Q & A – The Future of Freedom Foundation (fff.org)
-
On 5/31/2023 at 2:35 PM, Gerry Down said:
About the size of a fist, that sounds about right.
Oh, then you must agree that the autopsy brain photos are clearly fraudulent, since, as Dr. Baden was nice enough to acknowledge, they show a virtually complete brain that's missing no more than "an ounce or two" of its substance. A fist-sized clump of brain tissue would weigh a lot more than two ounces, not to mention the fact that the autopsy brain photos show no such amount of missing brain.
Let's remember what Vincent Bugliosi said about all the evidence of a large amount of missing brain. He waved it aside by quoting Dr. Baden, who based his claim on the brain photos! Yes, he did:
"Contrary to the myth," Dr. Michael Baden told me, people who have said that the president lost a good part of his brain “are absolutely wrong.” Baden says he saw the photographs taken of the president’s brain at the time of the autopsy, and under his direction the HSCA’s medical illustrator, Ida Dox, drew a diagram of the brain viewed from the top. (See sketch in photo section of book.) As Baden said in his testimony before the HSCA, the diagram “represents extensive damage and injury to the right top of the brain” (1 HSCA 304). (“It’s an exact depiction,” he told me.) Note the words “damage and injury” as opposed to saying a large part of the brain was “missing.”
So just never mind all the brain matter that we know was splattered inside the limo (right passenger door and back seat), on the limo's trunk, on the follow-up car (hood and windshield), on Jackie's dress, and on two of the trailing patrolmen (both of their uniforms and windshields)? That makes a total of 10 surfaces that were splattered with brain matter.
No rational, credible person can read the descriptions of the brain matter that was splattered on those 10 surfaces and believe that they are describing only two ounces of brain tissue.
What about all the witnesses, in three different locations, who said a large amount of brain tissue was missing? What do we do with all of their accounts? Just assume that, well, they were all "mistaken"?
And what about the fact that OD measurements confirm that the x-rays show that over half of the right-hand side of the brain was missing, and that brain matter was also missing on the left side? Well, just never you mind.
Unacknowledged
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Fox News is carrying a frontpage story on this:
Military whistleblower goes public with claims US has secret UFO retrieval program: ‘Terrestrial arms race’ | Fox News