JFK Autopsy Photo decoded?

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

At the 11 minute mark of this video, Dr. Humes is heard saying that he does not know or remember if the brain was taken out while he was watching this autopsy photograph.  What is interesting, the doctors can't make out these pictures.

 

 

[Robin Unger]

[Robin Unger]

[Robin Unger]

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

4 hours ago, Robin Unger said:

 

Hi Robin,

Would you consider updating your skull image taking into account these attached images?

 

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Keyvan Shahrdar

[Micah Mileto]

Your "ear" might be subcutaneous fat from the torso Y-incision, and even a nipple.  

This would be the upper left corner of this rotation:

(Lower left corner in this rotation): http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lg54d81a9d.png

From radiation oncologist David Mantik: 

It is strange that Thomas should be so certain that this is not a posterior view, despite never viewing this photo at NARA. I have not only done so, but have viewed it repeatedly in stereo. The upper left hand corner cannot be appreciated in reproductions, but it is highly relevant. In that corner, part of the abdomen is visible: the subcutaneous fat is seen folded out (as it was during the autopsy) and even a nipple is visible. Until the recent review by the ARRB, I was the only observer to note these features. Now, however, I am not alone: one of the ARRB experts, Robert Kirschner (a forensic pathologist, no less), saw the same anatomy in this corner of the photo. (See my Dallas lecture, slide 58.) Those specific anatomic landmarks in that corner can mean only one thing: this is a posterior view of the skull.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/thomas-donald-byron-hear-no-evil-social-constructivism-and-the-forensic-evidence-in-the-kennedy-assassination-two-reviews-2-part-1

David Mantik's 11/21/2009 presentation slides: http://assassinationscience.com/JFK_Skull_X-rays.htm

ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic pathologist Dr. Robert H. Kirschner: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=230tab=page

Quote

(7) Photographs of ARRB "View 7," (#s 17, 18, 44, and 45) could not be oriented or identified with any precision. Dr. Kirschner did say that he could not visualize this photograph as being the rear of the head, and that the curvature of the exterior surface of the skull in the photo could represent frontal bone, but that he could not be sure. The "ripples" inside the cranial cavity were interpreted as probably being the base of the skull. The notch in the photograph was opined to be too large to be an entrance wound; it was further observed to exhibit external beveling. However, because of the lack of clearly identifiable anatomic landmarks, this photograph ultimately could not be definitely oriented.  The "yellow spot" in the color photos near the skull was thought to be muscle and fat which had possibly been exposed by the reflection of skin pulled back as a result of the Y-incision during the autopsy. The artifact in the photograph which appears to be made of glass was tentatively identified by Dr. Kirschner as a formaldehyde bottle.

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

On 9/22/2018 at 7:08 AM, Micah Mileto said:

Your "ear" might be subcutaneous fat from the torso Y-incision, and even a nipple.  

This would be the upper left corner of this rotation:

(Lower left corner in this rotation): http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lg54d81a9d.png

From radiation oncologist David Mantik: 

It is strange that Thomas should be so certain that this is not a posterior view, despite never viewing this photo at NARA. I have not only done so, but have viewed it repeatedly in stereo. The upper left hand corner cannot be appreciated in reproductions, but it is highly relevant. In that corner, part of the abdomen is visible: the subcutaneous fat is seen folded out (as it was during the autopsy) and even a nipple is visible. Until the recent review by the ARRB, I was the only observer to note these features. Now, however, I am not alone: one of the ARRB experts, Robert Kirschner (a forensic pathologist, no less), saw the same anatomy in this corner of the photo. (See my Dallas lecture, slide 58.) Those specific anatomic landmarks in that corner can mean only one thing: this is a posterior view of the skull.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/thomas-donald-byron-hear-no-evil-social-constructivism-and-the-forensic-evidence-in-the-kennedy-assassination-two-reviews-2-part-1

David Mantik's 11/21/2009 presentation slides: http://assassinationscience.com/JFK_Skull_X-rays.htm

ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic pathologist Dr. Robert H. Kirschner: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=230tab=page

 

Micah,

If you look at the two images above, in the picture that depicts the top of JFK's head with hair.  You can see the temporal bone pushed inward causing an outward bulge to the right temporal area of his skull.

In the open skull photograph, you can see the temporal bone sideways in the right temporal area of the skull.

The scalp is classically dissected with the front covering JFK's face, not dissected sideways as you contend.

Also, all of the autopsy photographs that day are taken in a landscape orientation.  You want the reader to view this photograph in a portrait orientation and to have an exception to all the other photographs taken that day.

 

Furthermore, have you heard the audio of Dr. Humes and the other doctors?  They have a hard time understanding these images and recollecting the actual autopsy, understandably because they got interviewed fifteen years after the fact.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Keyvan Shahrdar

[Joe Bauer]

Very uninformed regards the medical terminology and knowledge context of these postings.

However, just a side thought regarding the comments made by these doctors at the 11 minute mark of the video.

Yes, 15 years is a long time and anyone ( even professionals ) can forget some details of anything they saw, heard, touched, examined etc. that long ago. Almost expected as normal.

However, even granting this, when looking at and assessing JFK's skull damage while looking at the photos, one doctor asked the other doctors whether the brain was removed before or after this skull damage photo was taken.  And like a previous poster noted, the one doctor who answered ( Humes?) wasn't sure.

Wasn't sure?

Couldn't these doctors know whether a brain was removed from a skull just by looking at the exterior of a skull as blown apart as JFK's was , where you could see right into the brain cavity?

Also, the questioning doctor didn't ask if the "brain" had been removed, but rather whether the brain "tissue" had been removed. To me that sounds as if JFK's brain matter was in pieces rather than anywhere near intact as a whole or part of a whole.

And it was mentioned that one flap of JFK's skull was so long, it hung down and touched not just the cheek of JFK ... but his shoulder as well? 

Now THAT'S some major skull damage.

The whole issue of JFK's brain removal ( time, method, who did this, who witnessed this  ) is so important and it seems that there is so much contradictory testimony that no one really knows the truth of it all.

And if JFK's brain was actually reported in the official autopsy report to weigh 1,500 grams after so much of JFK's brain matter was found throughout and even outside his limo on the bodies of others behind and in front of JFK at the moment of head shot impact in Dealey Plaza and staff at Parkland in the ER stating that brain matter was oozing out the huge hole in JFK's head while he was on the exam table...common sense tells you that hundreds of grams of JFK's brain did not make it to Bethesda.

Add in the medical fact that the average weight of a non-damaged male adult brain is between 1,300 and 1,400 grams, and the official autopsy report finding of JFK's removed brain ( in tissue pieces no less) weighing 1,500 grams... just doesn't make sense.

What is the average weight of a man's brain?

The average brain weight of the adult male was 1336 gr; for the adult female 1198 gr. With increasing age, brain weight decreases by 2.7 gr in males, and by 2.2 gr in females per year. Per centimeter body height brain weight increases independent of sex by an average of about 3.7 gr.

 

[Micah Mileto]

Neuropathologist Joe Riley said that this spot is the left parietal foramen. That would mean the camera is pointed at the upper-left back of the head.

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

BTW, what you think may be a crack in the Squamosal suture is actually the handle of a retractor sticking out of the head.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

16 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Neuropathologist Joe Riley said that this spot is the left parietal foramen. That would mean the camera is pointed at the upper-left back of the head.

 

 

 

Micah,

So if the scalp is dissected to the left as you content, and using the (not so) parietal foramen as a point of orientation, this means that his hair would have been shaved off because the lower left portion of the photo shows no hair.  Furthermore, the hair shown in the top of the photo would be significantly longer because that would be the top of the scalp.

Dr. Humes stated without hesitation that the point of entry was located below the occipital protuberance and to the right.  The entry hole is a oblong hole in the skin and in the skull.

I don't know about you, but the occipital protuberance would be clearly seen in this photograph if this was in fact the parietal foramen. Dr. Riley's assumption is not correct.

[Micah Mileto]

5 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

I don't know about you, but the occipital protuberance would be clearly seen in this photograph if this was in fact the parietal foramen. Dr. Riley's assumption is not correct.

I don't know, what about that totally occipital protuberance-shaped bony structure to the right of the photograph with what looks like a hole directly above it?

Edited September 23, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

I don't know, what about that totally occipital protuberance-shaped bony structure to the right of the photograph with what looks like a hole directly above it?

Then that is not what Dr. Humes described without hesitation.  He described a the point of entry was located below the occipital protuberance and to the right and furthermore, since there is a parietal foramen to the left and to the right of the sagittal suture and above the lambdoidal suture, there is no indication of the sagittal or lambdoidal suture shown in the photograph.  The occipital protuberance would be directly below the sagittal suture and the protuberance would be centered with the suture.

Also, let's bring up two more undeniable facts:

1. The dynamics of a full metal jacket bullet in a downward angle entering the skull below and to the right of the occipital protuberance would not magically change direction and exit on the top of the skull.

2. The JFK's X-rays show no damage to the parietal or occipital area of the skull.

There does however seem to be a coronal suture, that would align in parallel to the scalp folder over the face of the president.

Are you suggesting the the JFK x-ray of his skull is fake, yet the autopsy photographs are real?

 

[Rick McTague]

On 9/22/2018 at 1:49 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Very uninformed regards the medical terminology and knowledge context of these postings.

However, just a side thought regarding the comments made by these doctors at the 11 minute mark of the video.

Yes, 15 years is a long time and anyone ( even professionals ) can forget some details of anything they saw, heard, touched, examined etc. that long ago. Almost expected as normal.

However, even granting this, when looking at and assessing JFK's skull damage while looking at the photos, one doctor asked the other doctors whether the brain was removed before or after this skull damage photo was taken.  And like a previous poster noted, the one doctor who answered ( Humes?) wasn't sure.

Wasn't sure?

Couldn't these doctors know whether a brain was removed from a skull just by looking at the exterior of a skull as blown apart as JFK's was , where you could see right into the brain cavity?

Also, the questioning doctor didn't ask if the "brain" had been removed, but rather whether the brain "tissue" had been removed. To me that sounds as if JFK's brain matter was in pieces rather than anywhere near intact as a whole or part of a whole.

And it was mentioned that one flap of JFK's skull was so long, it hung down and touched not just the cheek of JFK ... but his shoulder as well? 

Now THAT'S some major skull damage.

The whole issue of JFK's brain removal ( time, method, who did this, who witnessed this  ) is so important and it seems that there is so much contradictory testimony that no one really knows the truth of it all.

 

 

Joe,

Even lowly technician Paul O'Connor was very clear that when they took JFK's body out of the pink shipping casket and the body bag (both of which did not come from Dallas), there was no brain in the cavity.  He said it was simply gone, you could reach both fisted hands into it.  Why wasn't that as clear to Humes and the others?

Thanks