Michael Griffith

The cerebellum in the third link is larger than the one in your graphic, and I don't see how a bullet entering 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the EOP could have missed the cerebellum, given the position of the cerebellum in that image and in the two other linked images. I am baffled as to what you are seeing in these images that would lead you to believe otherwise. I think it is a reach to dismiss Loquvam's and Finck's statements about the EOP site and the cerebellum. Another point is that it is by no means established or certain that Z313 is the rear head shot, since that shot obviously came from the front. It was a frangible bullet that exploded on impact to the right temple and blew out a hole in the right-rear part of the skull. That's why brain matter was blown backward and splattered all over the trunk, on the follow-up car, and on the windshields and uniforms of two of the trailing patrolmen. I don't understand how you can take the brain photos seriously given just what we know about the large amount of brain matter that was blown from the head. And how can any thinking person buy the fantasy that JFK's brain weighed 1,500 grams at the autopsy? So you see ever-so-slight damage to the cerebellum? Dr. Loquvam did not even see any evidence of premortem hemorrhaging in the cerebellum in the area at and near the EOP site, and he was looking at enhanced color photos of the brain. What's more, the entire FPP noted that there's no damage to the cerebellum where there should be damage if the bullet had entered at the EOP site: The panel notes that the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum virtually intact. It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report. There is no damage in the area of the brain corresponding to the piece of brain tissue on the hair which the autopsy pathologists told the panel was the entrance wound. (7 HSCA 129) Yet, even Dr. Sturdivan now agrees that the EOP site is correct, and that the autopsy photos support the EOP site. Moreover, all three ARRB forensic experts agreed that the skull x-rays show no entry site in the cowlick area. Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, notes that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex at the location of the alleged cowlick entry wound: There is no entrance wound where the HSCA locates it. The autopsy photographs show intact cerebral cortex at the point that the HSCA claims is an entrance wound. This is confirmed by correct interpretation of the X-rays. (LINK) Riley also notes that there is no connection between the high fragment trail and the cavitation wound, which is well below that trail, and that the cavitation wound is consistent with the EOP entry site: The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. . . . The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. . . . There are clear signs of an entrance wound where it was described by the prosectors. (LINK) And I take it that you dismiss as "mistaken" the reports from a number of Parkland doctors, two of whom were neurosurgeons, that a large rear wound exposed damaged and bleeding cerebellar tissue? I also take it that you reject as "mistaken" the dozens of accounts of a large right-rear head wound given by other Parkland doctors, Parkland nurses (one of whom packed the wound with gauze), FBI agents, Secret Service agents, a funeral worker at Parkland, the mortician at the autopsy who reassembled the skull, and numerous medical personnel at the autopsy? It's just an amazing, cosmic coincidence that these dozens of people, in three different locations, all reported seeing a large right-rear head wound? None of them could tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound that was several inches farther back and that included a sizable part of the occiput?

I will deal with your graphic in just a second, but first, does it give you any pause that Dr. Loquvam, after studying JFK's x-rays and the brain photos, including enhancements of them, concluded that a bullet entering the EOP site could not have missed the cerebellum? Does it give you any pause that Dr. Finck, who actually handled JFK's skull and examined the brain, did not answer Loquvam's point by saying, "Wait a minute! A bullet striking at the EOP site could have missed the cerebellum!"? Every skull is shaped somewhat differently. No two skulls are identical in shape and size. However, Loquvam and Finck were thoroughly familiar with JFK's skull and disagreed about the rear entry wound, yet both of them, in spite of this disagreement, acknowledged that a bullet entering at the EOP point could not have missed the cerebellum. I find it hard to simply brush this fact aside. Now, as for your graphic, that is one weird image of a skull. The EOP is not even apparent in your graphic, and the cerebellum seems unusually small. Compare your graphic with the location of the EOP and the location and size of the cerebellum in numerous other images and diagrams. For example, these images are particularly helpful because they show the cerebellum in radiographs of a human skull, enabling one to see the spatial/locational relationship between the cerebellum and the EOP: Figure 1 | Scientific Reports (nature.com) MRI vs. X-Ray: Pros, Cons, Costs & More (healthline.com) (image 2/4) Cerebellum: Anatomy, function, and disorders (medicalnewstoday.com) Look at the location of the EOP and the cerebellum in these images (as well as the size of the cerebellum) and tell me how a bullet striking at the EOP site could have missed the cerebellum. Here are some additional graphics for further reference on the EOP: File:External occipital protuberance - posterior view2.png - Wikimedia Commons Prominent External Occipital Protuberance - Radiology (weebly.com) This is not to even mention the extensive, mutually corroborating eyewitness descriptions of a large rear head wound that showed damaged and bleeding cerebellar tissue, and the dozens of mutually corroborating accounts of a large rear head wound that included a sizable part of the occiput.

Fantastic post. And WC apologists and others who claim the autopsy materials are pristine can only theorize that all those doctors and nurses were "mistaken," that in the rush of the moment they could not tell a large wound in the occiput from a large wound above the right ear, that two neurosurgeons and other doctors could not tell cerebellar tissue from other brain tissue, and that it is just an astonishing coincidence that their descriptions of the wound mirror those given by federal agents and medical personnel at the autopsy. It is just preposterous. Dr. Mantik has proved by the science of OD measurement that about 70% of the right side of the brain is missing in the autopsy x-rays. OD measurements have also proved that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that the odd white patch is a physical impossibility. But WC apologists and a few CTs eject his research, even though not one of them has conducted their own OD measurements. One typo I noticed in the final paragraph: "essentially by recollection" should be "essential my recollection."

Holy cow. These comments make me seriously question the value of your research on the medical evidence. Mortician Tom Robinson's drawing of the large rear head wound puts a large part of it in the cerebellum. He was the guy who reassembled the skull. Dr. McClelland and Francis O'Neill likewise produced diagrams that put part of the large rear head wound in the cerebellum. Two Parkland neurosurgeons said cerebellum was visible through the large rear head wound. If you choose to believe that they were "mistaken" and could not distinguish cerebellar tissue from the surrounding tissue, you have that right. If you believe the autopsy photos of the brain are pristine, no wonder you attack Dr. Mantik's research, even though it has been endorsed by nearly all of the pro-conspiracy medical experts in the research community. There is no way those photos are of JFK's brain--they don't even agree with the skull x-rays.

Actually, the Zapruder film does contain a very brief sequence that suggests a rear head shot. In Z312, JFK's head starts to move forward, but in Z313 it starts to move backward. I think the ever-so-brief forward movement is a remnant of a much more obvious forward movement in the original Zapruder film. Recall that several witnesses said JFK was knocked forward. Dan Rather, who saw the original Z film, said the film showed JFK being knocked forward. This forward movement, like the limo stop described by dozens of witnesses, was removed from the film (probably at the CIA-contracted photo lab in New York, as Doug Horne has documented). Another event missing from the extant Z film is JFK lifting his hand up to his head. Gayle Newman described it. After viewing an apparently different version of the Z film numerous times, William Manchester reported that JFK lifted his hand to his head (The Death of a President, p. 158). Even Jackie said, “And then he sort of did this [indicating], put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap” (5 H1 80). No movement of this kind is seen in the current version of the film.

I think this note supports the note that Ruby wrote to his second attorney, wherein he admitted that his claim that he killed Oswald to spare Jackie a trial was false and was fed to him by his first lawyer. In the Maddox note, I think Ruby was saying just what he meant regarding his motive: that his reason for shooting Oswald was to silence him. I think his comment about being "framed for the assassination" referred to his being painted as insane at his trial, being double-crossed, and being given the death penalty. I believe he had been led to think that he would get off with a light sentence or even acquitted.

You might be referring to Jerry Organ's bogus graphic, which he based on Lattimer's bogus graphic. The CT scan shows there was no unobstructed path from a C7/T1 wound to the throat wound. And, again, we now know from the ARRB materials and other sources that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were absolutely, positively certain that the back wound had no exit point. They found the end of the back wound's tract. It ended at the lining of the chest cavity. A number of personnel standing near the table could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. And note that this probing was done after the doctors removed the chest organs and after they positioned the body "every which way" (per Dr. Karnei). Boswell admitted to the ARRB that once they removed the chest organs, they were able to probe the wound.

I should do a separate thread on the contradictions between the autopsy skull x-rays and the autopsy brain photos, but just to add to my previous reply, I would note that none other than Dr. Humes told JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (LINK, p. 2798). Yet, no such massive damage to the right cerebrum is seen in the brain photos: they show only a displacement of the right cerebral lobe due to laceration and show only a small loss of brain tissue. Dr. Gary Aguilar has noted that the x-rays show much more tissue missing from the cerebrum than is shown missing in the brain photos (LINK). Dr. Mantik confirmed via OD measurement that only about 30% of the entire right side of the brain is present in the skull x-rays (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 5). Recall that Dr. Boswell stated in his HSCA interview that "the brain was so torn up it would not have shown a tract" (Memorandum: Interview with J. Thornton Boswell, HSCA, August 16, 1977, p. 2). However, the brain in the brain photos does not look anything like a brain that was "so torn up"--it has virtually no tissue missing; it has no damage on the left side; and it has only one large disruption on the right side (LINK, Figure 9).

That is very good news.

Wow. I think you are exaggerating, to put it mildly. I'll just say that you are in a very tiny minority among pro-conspiracy researchers. Most CTs recognize Dr. Mantik's research as not only superb but historic. I think his response to your critique shows that his research is far superior to yours.

Yes, I know that JFK's head is tilted somewhat forward in Z313, but, even assuming this frame is the rear-head-shot frame, this would not enable a bullet that entered at the EOP site to miss the cerebellum. Even a bullet traveling at a sharply upward angle could not have done so. I mean, let's get serious. Dr. Loquvam recognized that no bullet entering at the EOP site could have missed the cerebellum, and that, at the bare minimum, the bullet would have caused serious bleeding. When a bullet tears through brain tissue, it causes damage and bleeding. Dr. Finck, when pressed, admitted this and conceded he could not explain the complete absence of cerebellar damage in the brain photos. I guess the problem is that you do not want to admit that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. Those photos not only show an intact cerebellum, but they show very little brain matter missing. This is impossible. First off, the autopsy skull x-rays show a large area of missing brain, on both sides of the skull, in total contradiction to the brain photos. This is a fatal problem that WC apologists have simply ignored. Two, we know that a large amount of brain matter was blown into the limousine and onto the limousine's trunk, and was also blown toward two of the trailing patrolmen and toward the follow-up car. Brain matter splattered onto the windshields of the patrolmen's motorcycles and onto the hood and windshield of the follow-up car. WC apologists usually ignore this fact when defending the virtually intact brain seen in the autopsy brain photos. Three, numerous witnesses who saw the brain, both at Parkland and Bethesda, said that a large amount of brain was missing. Four, two Parkland neurosurgeons reported that the cerebellum was damaged and bleeding and was visible through the large defect. You can easily confirm via a Google search that cerebellar tissue is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue. The neurosurgeons' accounts are corroborated by massive eyewitness testimony (see below). Five, we have literally dozens of witnesses, from three different locations, who reported seeing a large rear head wound through which the cerebellum would have been visible, i.e., a wound that included a sizable part of the occiput.

Dr. John Nichols made a similar point years earlier. There is simply no way a bullet could have entered at C7 (or T1) and exited the throat without smashing through the spine. Add to this the fact that we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors established that the back wound had no exit point, and many witnesses in the room saw them establish this and heard Finck acknowledge it. That's why the first two versions of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat. And then there is the fact that any bullet exiting the slits under JFK's collar would have had to go through the tie, but there is no hole through the tie, and the small nick on the tie knot (made by a nurse who was hurriedly cutting away JFK's clothing) is not on either edge of the tie knot. The SBT is the modern version of the story of the emperor's new clothes. Any objective, candid person can see that it is utter nonsense, but there are those who cannot bring themselves to admit it.

It is worth noting that when the HSCA FPP asked Humes about the red spot that the panel identified as the rear head entry wound, Humes insisted there was no wound at the location: Dr HUMES. No. 1, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of entrance. (7 HSCA p. 254/000200) It is also worth noting that Dr. Finck confirmed that the rear head entry wound was in the occipital bone in his 1/25/65 memo to General Blumberg: I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 x 6 cm. Corresponding to this lesion. I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance. (Memo to General Blumberg, The Autopsy of President Kennedy: Summary, 1/25/65, p. 1) Yet, the extant autopsy skull x-rays do not show a single bullet fragment anywhere near the EOP entry site, much less a trail of fragments going from the EOP up to the area of the right orbit. Equally strange, the autopsy report makes no mention of the very obvious high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays.

Really? Seriously? I suggest Googling "cerebellum" and "external occipital protuberance," and keep in mind that a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window would have been traveling at a downward angle of 15 degrees. The pathologists said the wound was 2.5 cm (0.99 inch) to the right of and "slightly" above the EOP. As Dr. Loquvam noted, and as Dr. Finck acknowledged, a bullet entering at this site would have damaged cerebellar tissue. Of course, another problem with a supposedly undamaged cerebellum is that a Parkland neurosurgeon, Dr. Kemp Clark, who examined JFK's head, reported that the large head wound exposed the cerebellum and that cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound because the wound included part of the occiput: Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . . There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . . There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392) Yet, the alleged autopsy brain photos don't even show any pre-mortem bleeding of the cerebellum, as Dr. Loquvam noted. Keep in mind, also, that cerebellar tissue is easy to distinguish from the surrounding tissue because it has a very different appearance. Dr. Clark's report of damaged cerebellar tissue exposed by a large wound in the right-rear part of the skull is supported by numerous witnesses. For example: Dr. Malcolm Perry: I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue and some cerebellum seen. . . . (7 HSCA 302, interview with Purdy 1-11-78) Tom Robinson, the mortician who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy: . . . . a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. . . . (Meeting Report, ARRB, 6/21/96, p. 001486) Dr. Charles Carrico: . . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392) Dr. Marion T. Jenkins: There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392) Dr. Paul Peters: It was pointed out that an examination of the brain had been done. . . . We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound. . . . I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. . . . (6 H 70-71) Dr. Ronald Jones: He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head.... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood. (6 H 53-54) Dr. Gene Akin: The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding. . . . I assume the right occipital-parietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head. . . . (6 H 65, 67) We could go on for several pages. We could quote Secret Service agents who saw the body en route to Parkland, at Parkland, and at the autopsy, one of whom was sent to Bethesda for the express purpose of recording the president's wounds. We could quote the nurse who packed the head wound with gauze. We could quote the funeral worker at Parkland who had his hands on the back of JFK's head as he helped put the body into the casket and could feel the large defect in the rear of the skull. We could quote FBI agents who were at the autopsy. And, please, let's don't hear the silly claim that all these people all suffered some astonishing hallucination and/or couldn't tell the difference between a large wound in the occiput and a wound above the right ear. Please. Any rational, honest person knows that claim is drivel.

I know all about Gary Mack. I dealt with him in the early 2000s. I found him to be dishonest and unreliable. He once accidentally included me as a recipient on a revealing email that he sent to some fellow officials at the Sixth Floor Museum regarding my effort to get the museum to offer more anti-WC books in its bookstore. Among other things, his email made it clear that he had no intention of having the bookstore offer a balanced selection of books on the JFK case, even though most of the books published on the subject rejected the WC's claims. When I replied to his email and called him out on its contents, he declined to reply and would never deal with me again. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) did not refute the HSCA acoustical evidence. Far from it. The NAS panel did not even address all of the evidence that supports the acoustical evidence. In fact, if you read the NAS report with care, you discover that they admitted, in a very oblique manner, that by their own calculations there was only a 22.3% chance that the impulse identified as the grassy knoll shot was not a gunshot from the knoll. The panel also admitted--again, very obliquely--that their own calculations showed that there was only a 7% chance that the powerful locational movement correlations between the dictabelt gunshot impulses and the test-firing gunshots were the result of chance. (LINK)

There is now wide agreement in the research community that the rear head entry wound was slightly above the external occipital protuberance (EOP), just as stated in the autopsy report. Even Dr. Larry Sturdivan now argues that the EOP site is correct, and that the alleged cowlick entry site, which is nearly 4 inches above the EOP site, is invalid. Dr. Joseph Riley and Dr. David Mantik, among others, have written extensively on the evidence for the EOP site and against the cowlick site, and I agree that the EOP site is correct. However, here is the problem: If you believe the autopsy photos of the brain are genuine, you must reject the EOP entry site. Why? Because the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum, not even in the immediate area behind the EOP entry site. The photos do not even show any bleeding in the cerebellar tissue near the EOP site. Thus, if the brain photos are genuine, there is no way that a bullet could have entered the skull at the EOP site. This problem was brought to light when Dr. Pierre Finck was interviewed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP). The FPP was trying to get Finck to endorse the cowlick entry site. Finck adamantly refused to do so. After several exchanges on the entry site, FPP member Dr. George Loquvam confronted Finck with the fact that the alleged autopsy photos of the brain show no damage to cerebellar tissue, i.e., no damage to the cerebellum. Loquvam then asked Finck how a bullet could have entered the EOP without damaging cerebellar tissue. Loquvam probably had no idea that he was treading on dangerous ground because he was pointing out a brazen contradiction between the autopsy report and the autopsy photos of the brain. Anyway, in his first response to Loquvam’s crucial question, Finck floated the strange argument that a bullet could have entered at the EOP without damaging brain tissue and without even causing any hemorrhaging (bleeding). Loquvam was incredulous at this response and asked, “You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue?” Finck could not explain this contradiction and replied that he could not answer the question. Let us read this crucial exchange: Dr. Loquvam. If a missile had entered at this point, would it have entered the posterior cranial vault and produced subarachnoid hemorrhage in the cerebellar hemisphere? I have pointed to color picture No. 43 at the point of entrance that Dr. Finck is saying the entrance is and I am referring to the four color photographs of the brain in which I see no subarachnoid hemorrhage other than postmortem. My question is, if this is the point of entrance, isn't that at the level of the posterior cranial vault where the cerebellar hemispheres lie and would we not see subarachnoid hemorrhage if a slug had torn through there? Dr. Finck. Not necessarily because you have wounds without subarachnoid hemorrhage. Dr. Loquvam. You can have wounds in the brain without a missile track slug tearing through brain tissue? Dr. Finck. I don't know. I cannot answer your question. (HSCA Medical Panel Meeting transcript, March 11, 1978, p. 97) The problem was that Finck did not dare blurt out that the brain photos could not be accurate, that the brain shown in those photos could not be JFK’s brain. Doug Horne, among other scholars, has detailed the evidence that shows that there is simply no way the brain in the alleged autopsy brain photos could be JFK’s brain. DH Memo: Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) (history-matters.com) The evidence for this finding is so strong that even George Lardner of the Washington Post has taken it seriously: Washingtonpost.com: JFK Assassination Report

The high fragment trail does not extend to the supposed cowlick entry site. That trail is concentrated in the right frontal region and dissipates toward the back of the head without reaching the alleged entry site. There is no 6.5 mm metal fragment on the skull x-rays. OD measurements prove that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. There is a small genuine fragment within the image of the 6.5 mm object. The object is a ghosted image that was placed over the small genuine fragment. There are actually two small fragments on the back of the head, one in the outer table of the skull and the other between the galea and the outer table. Keep in mind that the autopsy report says nothing about the 6.5 mm object, even though it is the largest and most obvious fragment-like object on the skull x-rays, and there's no way the pathologists could have confused it with the 7 x 2 mm fragment, which they removed. No FMJ bullet could have deposited the back-of-head fragments. FMJ bullets do not behave in this manner. It is instructive that the HSCA FPP could not cite a single example of an FMJ bullet depositing one fragment, much less two, in or just below the outer table of the skull at or near the entry site. The radiating fracture pattern does not establish the cowlick entry site, as several experts have explained. And we have to keep asking two damning questions: Why does the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report not appear on the skull x-rays? Why did the autopsy doctors say nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report? A first-year medical student would not have made the impossible blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail that started at the EOP.

A few, not many, are corrections based on problems that you noted. Microsoft Word - SpeerCritique.docx (themantikview.org)

Pat, this is a great article. I have added a link to it on the Articles and Videos page of my JFK website (LINK).

Look, let's just boil this down to basics. Our exchange started after I responded to Allen Lowe's attack on Memet, in which Lowe expressed doubt about the value of Memet's upcoming JFKA documentary because he regards Memet as "extremely untrustworthy" based on Memet's support of Trump. I said and still say that such a comment shows extreme partisan bias, but you said and still say that it does not. One clear difference between us is that you will draw a sweeping conclusion about a person's judgment if they opine that Reagan was one of our worst presidents or if they opine that Trump was one of our best presidents. I would never draw such a broad, summary conclusion about a person's judgment based on either of those statements. I would disagree with that attack on Reagan and with that praise of Trump. I would say that the person who expressed those views was wrong. But, I would not jump to the sweeping conclusion that their judgment was unreliable, much less that they were "extremely untrustworthy." We'll agree to disagree.

Just to be clear, I have no idea if Prouty was a plant, an infiltrator, etc., and I am not saying he was. I believe it is possible that he was, but that's as far as I would go. It's a possibility. However, I think it's more likely that he was simply a fraud, an oddball, and a publicity seeker. If the plotters had wanted to plant an infiltrator in the research community who would do enormous damage to the case for conspiracy, they could not have found anyone who could have done a better job than Prouty did (and is still doing through those who continue to defend him and who use him as a source).

Incidentally, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, one of the ARRB's forensic experts, said 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: 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) Anyway, regarding Chesser and Mantik, we're not just talking about interpretation but mutually corroborating sets of optical density (OD) measurements. True, Chesser is not a forensic radiologist, but he is a neurologist. Many neurologists are just as skilled at reading x-rays as radiologists. Neurologists sometimes do their own x-ray readings without consulting with a radiologist. The ARRB's forensic radiologist, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, confirmed Dr. Mantik's finding that the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray has no corresponding image on the lateral x-rays, which is a physical impossibility if the x-rays are pristine. Mantik had already confirmed the absence of a corresponding image on the lateral x-rays via OD measurements. Fitzpatrick also agreed with Mantik's finding that the x-rays show frontal bone missing all the way to the hairline (or, to put it another way, that the frontal bone is intact only up to the hairline). Yet, the HSCA FPP claimed that the frontal bone was intact all the way back to the coronal suture (HSCA Exhibit F-66). Fitzpatrick indicated to Doug Horne that he saw no importance in Mantik's OD measurements. When Mantik politely attempted to get Fitzpatrick to explain why he felt this way, Fitzpatrick declined to do so. Due to the historic and disturbing implications of Mantik's OD measurements, his peers have so far declined to offer substantive commentary on them in writing. However, Dr. Arthur G. Haus, who was then the chief medical physicist at Kodak, proof-read Mantik's original article on his OD measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays. The science of OD measurement is recognized and well established. As both a physicist and a radiation oncologist, Dr. Mantik is highly qualified to perform OD measurements. He uses them frequently in his medical practice as a radiation oncologist.

Since the gelatin blocks were not encased in any substance similar to skull bone, the test discussed in the paper can't tell us much about JFK's head wounds and the autopsy skull x-rays. The problems posed by the EOP entry wound include the following: -- There is no way that a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have entered at the EOP site and then caused the exit wound described in the autopsy report. The bullet would have struck at a downward angle of 15 degrees. JFK would have had to be leaning far forward, about 60 degrees forward, to make the trajectory work, but the Zapruder film shows he was not leaning that far forward. -- The wound makes it impossible to explain the two small bullet fragments on the back of the skull (one of which is inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object), since both fragments are several inches above the EOP and are on the outer table of the skull. -- There is no way that a bullet entering the EOP site at downward angle of 15 degrees could have created the high fragment trail now seen on the skull x-rays. -- The extant skull x-rays show no bullet fragments at or near the EOP site, yet the autopsy doctors insisted there was a fragment trail that started at the EOP and went slightly upward to a point just above the right eye (the right orbit). A key point to keep in mind is that when the autopsy doctors reviewed the autopsy materials for five hours in early 1967, they wrote a report about their review, and in that report they reaffirmed that the autopsy report's EOP entry point was correct. They even said that four of the autopsy photos proved this location was correct. I quote: The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). . . . Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42, and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate (Attestation of Examination of Autopsy Photographs and Radiographs, 1/26/67, p. 3) However, in a fascinating omission, the autopsy doctors did not mention the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail described in the autopsy report. Humes discussed this fragment trail in detail in his WC testimony (2 H 353-354). Needless to say, a fragment trail from the EOP to the right orbit would be powerful evidence that a bullet struck near the EOP and ranged slightly upward. Yet, oddly enough, after reviewing the autopsy materials for five hours, the autopsy doctors said nothing about this fragment trail in their review report, even though they were clearly trying to defend their autopsy findings. So, they either inexplicably failed to mention a key piece of evidence for their claims about the head shot or that key piece of evidence was no longer on the skull x-rays.

Yes, Sturdivan attempts to deal with the impossible trajectory posed by the EOP site by theorizing that the bullet, after supposedly entering the skull at a 15-degree downward angle, magically made a sharp right turn and also veered upward to exit the upper-front part of the right parietal bone (The JFK Myths, p. 180, Figure 54). I suspect that Sturdivan knows better. He must know that not one of the bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests veered so dramatically. I find it interesting that Sturdivan says nothing about the fact that the fragment trail described in the autopsy report is not seen in the skull x-rays, and that the autopsy report fails to mention the high fragment trail seen in the skull x-rays.

Pat, I agree completely that the pathologists were correct about the location of the rear head entry wound (which is one reason the absence of a low fragment trail on the skull x-rays is so problematic). In connection with this, it should be noted that the ARRB forensic pathologists--Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Kirschner--said the skull x-rays showed no evidence of an entrance wound in the cowlick area. Moreover, Dr. Ubelaker said that the photos of the back of the head support the EOP entry site, not the cowlick site. 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 argued when several of the HSCA FPP members tried to pressure them to repudiate the EOP site and endorse the cowlick entry site. (Humes finally and very reluctantly did endorse the cowlick site, but later repudiated it and returned to his original position.) Even Dr. Larry Sturdivan eventually came around to the position that the EOP entry site is correct. All of this brings us back to the question at hand: Why is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays? A related question is, Why does the autopsy report say nothing about the obvious, clear high fragment trail seen on the extant skull x-rays?